do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-76/19: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Pontinova v EUIPO — Ponti & Partners (pontinova) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark pontinova — Earlier national word mark PONTI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Relevant public — Similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, legal adviser, legal aid, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020215EN.01003701.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/37






Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Pontinova v EUIPO — Ponti & Partners (pontinova)
(Case T-76/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark pontinova - Earlier national word mark PONTI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Relevant public - Similarity of the services - Similarity of the signs - Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion)
(2020/C 215/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pontinova AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Röh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Ponti & Partners, SLP (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 (Case R 566/2018 5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ponti & Partners and Pontinova.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Pontinova AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 May 2020 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other parameters, amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 (14649/2/2019 — C9-0078/2020 — 2018/0148(COD))
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Committee on Transport and Tourism, Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, European Parliament
Subjects: European standard, consumer information, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy saving, environmental protection, labelling, motor fuel, pneumatic tyre








C_2021323EN.01001801.xml










11.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 323/18






P9_TA(2020)0055
Labelling of tyres: fuel efficiency and other essential parameters ***II
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 May 2020 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other parameters, amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 (14649/2/2019 — C9-0078/2020 — 2018/0148(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: second reading)
(2021/C 323/04)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Council position at first reading (14649/2/2019 — C9-0078/2020),










—


having regard to its position at first reading (1) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2018)0296),










—


having regard to Article 294(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,










—


having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 74(4) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A9-0094/2020),












1.


Approves the Council position at first reading;












2.


Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the Council position;












3.


Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council, in accordance with Article 297(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;












4.


Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;












5.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.






(1)  Texts adopted of 26.3.2019, P8_TA(2019)0230.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 May 2020 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Status Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia on actions carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in the Republic of Serbia (15581/2018 — C9-0180/2019 — 2018/0409(NLE))
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee on Foreign Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: European cooperation, Frontex, Serbia, agreement (EU), border control, external border of the EU, illegal migration, operation of the Institutions, ratification of an agreement








C_2021323EN.01002201.xml










11.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 323/22






P9_TA(2020)0058
EU-Serbia status agreement on actions carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in Serbia ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 May 2020 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Status Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia on actions carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in the Republic of Serbia (15581/2018 — C9-0180/2019 — 2018/0409(NLE))
(Consent)
(2021/C 323/07)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (15581/2018),










—


having regard to the draft Status Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia on actions carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in the Republic of Serbia (15579/2018),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), points (b) and (d), Article 79(2), point (c), and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0180/2019),










—


having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0019/2020),












1.


Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Serbia.
Case T-308/19: Order of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Lucaccioni v Commission (Action for annulment and for compensation — Civil service — Non actionable measure — Preparatory measure — No claim — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part inadmissible)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, abuse of power, damages, enforcement of ruling, indemnification, insurance indemnity, medical report, occupational disease, personal accident insurance, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020222EN.01002402.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/24






Order of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Lucaccioni v Commission
(Case T-308/19) (1)

(Action for annulment and for compensation - Civil service - Non actionable measure - Preparatory measure - No claim - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part inadmissible)
(2020/C 222/27)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Arnaldo Lucaccioni (San Benedetto del Tronto, Italy) (represented by: E. Bonanni, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and L. Vernier, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 11 January 2019 on the mandate of a new medical committee in the context of a request made by the applicant for recognition of aggravation of an occupational disease and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1)


The action is dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, inadmissible.










2)


Mr Arnaldo Lucaccioni shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/665 of 13 May 2020 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Aceite de Jaén’ (PGI))
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Andalusia, Spain, designation of origin, labelling, olive oil, product designation








L_2020156EN.01000101.xml










19.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 156/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/665
of 13 May 2020
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Aceite de Jaén’ (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Aceite de Jaén’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Aceite de Jaén’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Aceite de Jaén’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.5. Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 May 2020.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 30, 29.1.2020, p. 9.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case T-290/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Agmin Italy v Commission (Financial Regulation — Exclusion from procurement and grant award procedures covered by the general EU budget and by the European Development Fund for a two-year period — Principle of impartiality — Rights of the defence — Error of assessment — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, European Development Fund, award of contract, principle of proportionality, public procurement, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2020215EN.01002901.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/29






Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Agmin Italy v Commission
(Case T-290/18) (1)

(Financial Regulation - Exclusion from procurement and grant award procedures covered by the general EU budget and by the European Development Fund for a two-year period - Principle of impartiality - Rights of the defence - Error of assessment - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)
(2020/C 215/34)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Agmin Italy SpA (Verona, Italy) ((represented by: F. Guardascione, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 7 March 2018 excluding the applicant for three years from participating in procurement and grant award procedures covered by the general budget of the European Union, from participating in procedures for the award of funds from the European Development Fund (EDF) and from publishing information relating to that exclusion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Agmin Italy SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Case T-288/19: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Divaro v EUIPO — Grendene (IPANEMA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark IPANEMA — Earlier EU figurative mark Ipanema — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020215EN.01004001.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/40






Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Divaro v EUIPO — Grendene (IPANEMA)
(Case T-288/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark IPANEMA - Earlier EU figurative mark Ipanema - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 215/50)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Divaro, SA (Oviedo, Spain) (represented by: M. Santos Quintana and M. A. Fernández Munárriz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Grendene, SA (Sobral, Brazil)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2019 (Case R 1785/2018-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Grendene and Divaro.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 February 2019 (Case R 1785/2018-2) in so far as it dismissed the action of Divaro, SA for ‘protective glasses’ in Class 9;










2.


Rejects the opposition for all the goods covered in the application for registration, except for ‘glasses (optical)’, ‘frames for the latter (lenses)’ and ‘sports glasses’ in Class 9;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 May 2020 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Belarus on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (12158/2019 — C9-0004/2020 — 2019/0181(NLE))
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee on Foreign Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: Belarus, EU visa policy, agreement (EU), illegal migration, ratification of an agreement, residence permit, return migration








C_2021323EN.01002501.xml










11.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 323/25






P9_TA(2020)0061
EU-Belarus Agreement on readmission of persons residing without authorisation ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 May 2020 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Belarus on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (12158/2019 — C9-0004/2020 — 2019/0181(NLE))
(Consent)
(2021/C 323/10)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (12158/2019),










—


having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Belarus on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (12160/2019),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 79(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0004/2020),










—


having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0097/2020),












1.


Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Belarus.
Case T-444/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg) (EU trade mark — Invalidity and revocation proceedings — EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the EU trade mark — Demarcation agreement — Application of national law by EUIPO — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020215EN.01003001.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/30






Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)
(Case T-444/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity and revocation proceedings - EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg - Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the EU trade mark - Demarcation agreement - Application of national law by EUIPO - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Manifest error of assessment)
(2020/C 215/36)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, M. Petersenn and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2018 (Case R 522/2006-1), relating to invalidity and revocation proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg) and Peek & Cloppenburg (Düsseldorf).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.
Case T-535/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek’s) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Peek’s — Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the mark applied for — Demarcation agreement — Application of national law by EUIPO — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2020-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, essential oil, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020215EN.01003301.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/33






Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek’s)
(Case T-535/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Peek’s - Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the mark applied for - Demarcation agreement - Application of national law by EUIPO - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Manifest error of assessment)
(2020/C 215/40)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, M. Petersenn and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2018 (Case R 60/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg) and Peek & Cloppenburg (Düsseldorf).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.