do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-223/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 28 May 2020 — B Oy
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: beer, beverage industry, direct applicability, excise duty, small business, tax relief








C_2020262EN.01001801.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 28 May 2020 — B Oy
(Case C-223/20)
(2020/C 262/23)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: B Oy

Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 4 of Directive 92/83/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which applies reduced rates of excise duty to beer produced by independent small breweries pursuant to that provision must also apply the provision on the joint taxation of small breweries contained in the second sentence of Article 4(2) of that directive, or is the application of the latter provision left to the discretion of the Member State concerned?










2.


Does the second sentence of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/83/EEC have direct effect?






(1)  Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21).
Case T-724/18 and T-184/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Aurea Biolabs v EUIPO — Avizel (AUREA BIOLABS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark AUREA BIOLABS — Earlier EU word mark AUREA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Correction of the Board of Appeal’s decision — Article 102 of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, food supplement, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020230EN.01002901.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/29






Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Aurea Biolabs v EUIPO — Avizel (AUREA BIOLABS)
(Case T-724/18 and T-184/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark AUREA BIOLABS - Earlier EU word mark AUREA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Correction of the Board of Appeal’s decision - Article 102 of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2020/C 230/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Aurea Biolabs Pte Ltd (Cochin, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth QC and L. Oommen, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Kompari, H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Avizel SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. De Keersmaeker and W.-J. Cosemans, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought, in Case T-724/18, against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 September 2018 (Case R 814/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Avizel and Aurea Biolabs, and, in Case T-184/19, action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2019 (Case R 814/2018-2 (CORR)), correcting the decision of 11 September 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Joins Cases T-724/18 and T-184/19 for the purposes of the judgment;










2.


Dismisses the actions;










3.


Orders Aurea Biolabs Pte Ltd, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Avizel SA to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.
Case T-677/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — Intercontinental Great Brands (gullón TWINS COOKIE SANDWICH) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark gullón TWINS COOKIE SANDWICH — Earlier EU figurative mark OREO — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020230EN.01002601.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/26






Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — Intercontinental Great Brands (gullón TWINS COOKIE SANDWICH)
(Case T-677/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark gullón TWINS COOKIE SANDWICH - Earlier EU figurative mark OREO - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 230/32)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Galletas Gullón, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: S. Martínez-Almeida y Alejos-Pita and M. Corbal San Adrián, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Intercontinental Great Brands LLC (East Hanover, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: C. Duch Fonoll, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2018 (Case R 2378/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Intercontinental Great Brands and Galletas Gullón.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Galletas Gullón, SA, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred in the present proceedings by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Intercontinental Great Brands LLC.






(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.
Case T-574/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Agrochem-Maks v Commission (Plant-protection products — Active substance oxasulfuron — Non-renewal of approval for placing on the market — Obligation to state reasons — Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Manifest error of assessment — Article 6(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and point 2.2 of Annex II to Regulation No 1107/2009 — Precautionary principle)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: market approval, plant health control, plant health product, precautionary principle








C_2020230EN.01002402.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/24






Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Agrochem-Maks v Commission
(Case T-574/18) (1)

(Plant-protection products - Active substance oxasulfuron - Non-renewal of approval for placing on the market - Obligation to state reasons - Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Manifest error of assessment - Article 6(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and point 2.2 of Annex II to Regulation No 1107/2009 - Precautionary principle)
(2020/C 230/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis, I. Naglis and G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev, J. Lundberg and H. Eklinder, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1019 of 18 July 2018 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance oxasulfuron, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2018 L 183, p. 14).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present action and in the proceedings for interim measures;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Case T-333/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Ntolas v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES — Earlier EU word mark GNC — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, food supplement, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vitamin








C_2020230EN.01003201.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/32






Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Ntolas v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES)
(Case T-333/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES - Earlier EU word mark GNC - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 230/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Christos Ntolas (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: C. Renger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: General Nutrition Investment Co. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Rijsdijk, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 March 2019 (Case R 1343/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between General Nutrition Investment and Mr Ntolas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Christos Ntolas to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by General Nutrition Investment Co.






(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Case T-696/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Consejo Regulador ‘Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel’ v EUIPO — Airesano Foods (AIRESANO BLACK El ibérico de Teruel) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark AIRESANO BLACK El ibérico de Teruel — Earlier EU figurative mark JAMON DE TERUEL CONSEJO REGULADOR DE LA DENOMINACION DE ORIGEN — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, meat product, pigmeat, registered trade mark, sale, trade-mark law








C_2020230EN.01002701.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/27






Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Consejo Regulador ‘Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel’ v EUIPO — Airesano Foods (AIRESANO BLACK El ibérico de Teruel)
(Case T-696/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark AIRESANO BLACK El ibérico de Teruel - Earlier EU figurative mark JAMON DE TERUEL CONSEJO REGULADOR DE LA DENOMINACION DE ORIGEN - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 230/34)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel’ (Teruel, Spain) (represented by F. Pérez Álvarez and J. Pérez Itarte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. F. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Airesano Foods, SL (La Puebla de Valverde, Spain) (represented by: J. Sanmartín, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz and M. J. Ruiz Sánchez, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2018 (Case R 88/2018-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel’ and Airesano Foods.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel’ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Airesano Foods, SL;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.
Case T-310/20: Action brought on 28 May 2020 — Comercializadora Eloro v EUIPO — Zumex Group (JUMEX)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020240EN.01002901.xml










20.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/29






Action brought on 28 May 2020 — Comercializadora Eloro v EUIPO — Zumex Group (JUMEX)
(Case T-310/20)
(2020/C 240/36)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Comercializadora Eloro (Ecatepec, Mexico) (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero, P. Merino Baylos and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zumex Group, SA (Moncada, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark JUMEX — Application for registration No 12 329 181

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 in Case R 534/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and order the opponent to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-564/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 —Lozano Arana and Others v EUIPO — Coltejer (LIBERTADOR) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark LIBERTADOR — Genuine use of the mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Right to be heard — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 — Due notification — Article 60 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 (now Article 60 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Failure to produce proof of genuine use of the mark within the time limit prescribed — Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation 2017/1430 (now Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, clothing, cosmetic product, footwear industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020230EN.01003501.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/35






Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 —Lozano Arana and Others v EUIPO — Coltejer (LIBERTADOR)
(Case T-564/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark LIBERTADOR - Genuine use of the mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Right to be heard - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Due notification - Article 60 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 (now Article 60 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Failure to produce proof of genuine use of the mark within the time limit prescribed - Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation 2017/1430 (now Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625)
(2020/C 230/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Antonio Lozano Arana (Cali, Colombia), Daniel Simon Benmaor (Marseilles, France), Marion Esther Benmaor (Marseilles), Valérie Brigitte Danielle Servant (Marrakesh, Morocco) (represented by: M. Angelier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Coltejer SA (Itagüí, Colombia)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2019 (Case R 2482/2018-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Coltejer and Mr Albert Benmaor and Mr Lozano Arana.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Antonio Lozano Arana, Mr Daniel Simon Benmaor, Ms Marion Esther Benmaor and Ms Valérie Brigitte Danielle Servant to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
Case C-654/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH v SAA Sonderabfallagentur Baden-Württemberg GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Shipment of waste — Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 — Procedure of prior written notification and consent — General information requirements — Annex IIIA — Mixture of paper, paperboard and paper products — Entry B3020 of Annex IX to the Basel Convention — Impurities — Contamination of a mixture by other materials — Environmentally sound method of recovery)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, cross-border transport, dangerous substance, environmental protection, export of waste, international convention, paper, paperboard, waste management








C_2020255EN.01000401.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/4






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH v SAA Sonderabfallagentur Baden-Württemberg GmbH
(Case C-654/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Shipment of waste - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Procedure of prior written notification and consent - General information requirements - Annex IIIA - Mixture of paper, paperboard and paper products - Entry B3020 of Annex IX to the Basel Convention - Impurities - Contamination of a mixture by other materials - Environmentally sound method of recovery)
(2020/C 255/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH

Defendant: SAA Sonderabfallagentur Baden-Württemberg GmbH

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/2002 of 10 November 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a mixture of paper, paperboard and paper product wastes, each of which comes under one of the first three indents of entry B3020 of Annex IX to the Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, signed in Basel on 22 March 1989, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 93/98/EEC of 1 February 1993, reproduced in List B of Part 1 of Annex V to that regulation, and which also contains up to 10 % impurities.










2.


Article 3(2)(b) of Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation 2015/2002, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to such a mixture of wastes provided that, first, that mixture does not contain materials which come under the fourth indent of entry B3020 of Annex IX to that convention, reproduced in List B of Part 1 of Annex V to that regulation, and, second, the requirements in paragraph 1 of Annex IIIA to that regulation are met, which it is for the referring court to verify.






(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.