do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-331/20: Action brought on 29 May 2020 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Le-Vel Brands (Le-Vel)
Date: 2020-05-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, cosmetic product, essential oil, flavouring, hairdressing and beauty care, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, retail selling, trade-mark law








C_2020247EN.01004201.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/42






Action brought on 29 May 2020 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Le-Vel Brands (Le-Vel)
(Case T-331/20)
(2020/C 247/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Le-Vel Brands LLC (Frisco, Texas, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Le-Vel — Application for registration No 15 229 974

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 March 2020 in Case R 2113/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


reject the European Union trade mark application ‘Le-vel’, No 15 229 974, for all goods and services in class 3 and 35;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener (in case Le-Vel Brands, LLC. decides to intervene in the present proceedings) to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Corrigendum to Decision No 2/2020 of the EU-Singapore Trade Committee of 27 April 2020 on the interpretation, pursuant to Article 16.1(4)(d), of Articles 10.17 and 10.22 of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore as regards changes to the protection of geographical indications for wines, spirits, agricultural products and foodstuffs registered in Singapore [2020/644] (Official Journal of the European Union L 150 of 13 May 2020)
Date: 2020-05-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: Singapore, agricultural product, designation of origin, foodstuff, free-trade agreement, interpretation of the law, product designation, spirits, trade agreement (EU), wine








L_2020167EN.01001601.xml










29.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 167/16







Corrigendum to Decision No 2/2020 of the EU-Singapore Trade Committee of 27 April 2020 on the interpretation, pursuant to Article 16.1(4)(d), of Articles 10.17 and 10.22 of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore as regards changes to the protection of geographical indications for wines, spirits, agricultural products and foodstuffs registered in Singapore [2020/644]

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 150 of 13 May 2020
)


On the cover and on page 140, in the title:
for:


                  ‘of 27 April 2020
                  ’;

read:


                  ‘of 17 April 2020
                  ’
Case T-329/20: Action brought on 29 May 2020 — 4B Company v EUIPO — Deenz (Pendants (jewellery))
Date: 2020-05-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, jewellery and goldsmith's articles








C_2020247EN.01004102.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/41






Action brought on 29 May 2020 — 4B Company v EUIPO — Deenz (Pendants (jewellery))
(Case T-329/20)
(2020/C 247/57)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: 4B Company Srl (Montegiorgio, Italy) (represented by: G. Brogi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Deenz Holding Ltd (Dubai, United Arab Emirates)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design No 2 100-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2020 in Case R 2449/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division, granted the application to maintain Community design No 21 00-0001 in amended form and allowed the design in amended form to be included on the register and published in the Community Designs Bulletin, and, as a result, confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division of 15 October 2018 in Case ICD 10 654;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement and misinterpretation of Article 25(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9801 – Allianz/OMERS Infrastructure/T&R JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 227/01
Date: 2020-05-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: catering industry, economic concentration, holding company, hotel industry, insurance company, investment company, merger control, pension scheme, retail trade, subsidiary








C_2020227EN.01000101.xml










10.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9801 – Allianz/OMERS Infrastructure/T&R JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 227/01)
On 29 May 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9801. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-229/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 May 2020 — P v ‘K’ EOOD
Date: 2020-05-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank charges, consumer credit, consumer protection, cost of borrowing, redemption, unfair terms of contract








C_2020271EN.01002701.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 May 2020 — P v ‘K’ EOOD
(Case C-229/20)
(2020/C 271/35)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: P

Defendant:‘K’ EOOD

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the fees for ancillary services agreed in connection with a consumer credit agreement, such as fees for the possibility of deferring and reducing instalments, constitute part of the annual percentage rate of charge for the credit?










2.


Is Article 10(2)(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that an incorrect indication of the annual percentage rate of charge in a credit agreement between a trader and a consumer borrower must be regarded as a failure to indicate the annual percentage rate of charge in the credit agreement and that the national court must apply the legal consequences provided for under national law for failure to indicate the annual percentage rate of charge in a consumer credit agreement?










3.


Is Article 22(4) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a penalty provided for under national law, in the form of nullity of the consumer credit agreement, whereby only the principal amount granted is to be repaid, is proportionate if the annual percentage rate of charge is not accurately indicated in the consumer credit agreement?










4.


Is Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 93/13/EEC (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the fees for a package of ancillary services provided for in a separate supplementary agreement to a consumer credit agreement as the main agreement must be regarded as part of the main subject matter of the latter agreement and cannot therefore be the subject of the assessment of unfairness?










5.


Irrespective of the answer to the third question, is Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC in conjunction with point 1(o) of the annex to that directive to be interpreted as meaning that a term in an agreement for ancillary services relating to consumer credit is unfair if it grants the consumer the abstract possibility of deferring and rescheduling his payments and he owes fees for that possibility even if he does not make use of it?






(1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

(2)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union 2020/C 180/09
Date: 2020-05-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, fortified wine, spirits








C_2020180EN.01001401.xml










29.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/14






Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2020/C 180/09)
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 102, between the Explanatory Note to CN heading

‘2208 Undenatured ethyl alcohol of an alcoholic strength by volume of less than 80 % vol; spirits, liqueurs and other spirituous beverages’

and before the Explanatory Note to CN subheadings

‘2208 30 11 to 2208 30 88 Whiskies’

, the following paragraph is inserted:








‘2208 20 




Spirits obtained by distilling grape wine or grape marc

See the HS Explanatory Note to heading 2208, third paragraph, (1).
This subheading includes “wine distillate” (or “raw distillate of wine”) which is obtained by the primary distillation, after alcoholic fermentation, of grape wine. It does not have the properties of neutral ethyl alcohol or of a spirit drink but still retains the aroma and taste of the raw material used. Wine distillate can be added to a wine spirit to obtain Brandy or Weinbrand.’







(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 119, 29.3.2019, p. 1.