do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-422/20: Action brought on 7 July 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT5)
Date: 2020-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, electronic device, electronic game, micro-computer, mobile phone, registered trade mark, retail trade, software, trade-mark law








C_2020287EN.01003701.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/37






Action brought on 7 July 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT5)
(Case T-422/20)
(2020/C 287/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC and M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

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 GT5 — Application for registration No 14 738 272

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 in Case R 1600/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and other party to bear their costs and pay those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to identify specifically the relevant public;










—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to take into account the evidence as to the likely perception of the earlier European Union Trade mark by the relevant public;










—


Failure to consider the other elements of the above mentioned Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) objections;










—


Failure to apply national rules under Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament by failing to consider the other elements under passing off law.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9843 — Colony Capital/PSP/NGD) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 34/02
Date: 2020-07-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: computer centre, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2021034EN.01000201.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9843 — Colony Capital/PSP/NGD)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 34/02)
On 7 July 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 32020M9843. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-423/20: Action brought on 7 July 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT9)
Date: 2020-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, electronic device, electronic game, micro-computer, mobile phone, registered trade mark, retail trade, software, trade-mark law








C_2020287EN.01003801.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/38






Action brought on 7 July 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT9)
(Case T-423/20)
(2020/C 287/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC and M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

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 GT9 — Application for registration No 14 738 298

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceeding

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 in Case R 1610/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and other party to bear their costs and pay those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to identify specifically the relevant public;










—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to take into account the evidence as to the likely perception of the earlier European Union Trade mark by the relevant public;










—


Failure to consider the other elements of the above mentioned Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) objections;










—


Failure to apply national rules under Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament by failing to consider the other elements under passing off law.
Case T-421/20: Action brought on 7 July 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT3)
Date: 2020-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, electronic device, electronic game, micro-computer, mobile phone, registered trade mark, retail trade, software, trade-mark law








C_2020287EN.01003601.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/36






Action brought on 7 July 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT3)
(Case T-421/20)
(2020/C 287/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz; QC and M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

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 GT3 — Application for registration No 14 738 264

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Forth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 in Case R 1609/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to identify specifically the relevant public;










—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to take into account the evidence as to the likely perception of the earlier European Union Trade mark by the relevant public;










—


Failure to consider the other elements of the above mentioned Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) objections;










—


Failure to apply national rules under Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament by failing to consider the other elements under passing off law.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9828 — Blackstone/NIBC Holding) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 270/01
Date: 2020-07-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: bank, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2020270EN.01000101.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9828 — Blackstone/NIBC Holding)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 270/01)
On 7 July 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 32020M9828. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-300/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2020 — BUND Naturschutz in Bayern e.V. v Landkreis Rosenheim
Date: 2020-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU programme, environmental impact, environmental law, protected area, protection of animal life, protection of plant life








C_2020304EN.01000901.xml










14.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2020 — BUND Naturschutz in Bayern e.V. v Landkreis Rosenheim
(Case C-300/20)
(2020/C 304/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BUND Naturschutz in Bayern e.V.

Defendant: Landkreis Rosenheim

Other party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern, representing the interests of the Federal Government before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a framework for future development consent of projects listed in Annexes I and II to Directive 2011/92/EU (2) (‘the EIA Directive’) is set where a regulation on nature conservation and landscape management provides for general prohibitions (with possible exemptions) and compulsory permits which do not specifically relate to projects listed in the annexes to the EIA Directive?










2.


Is Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42 to be interpreted as meaning that plans and programmes were prepared for agriculture, forestry, land use, etc. if their objective was to establish a reference framework for one or more of those areas? Or does it suffice if, for the purpose of nature conservation and landscape management, general prohibitions and permit requirements are regulated which have to be assessed in the permit procedure for a variety of projects and uses and which may indirectly impact (‘by default’) one or more of those areas?










3.


Is Article 3(4) of Directive 2001/42 to be interpreted as meaning that a framework for future development consent of projects is set if a regulation adopted for the purpose of nature conservation and landscape management lays down prohibitions and permit requirements for a variety of projects and measures in the protected area which are described in abstract terms, where there are no actual foreseeable or envisaged projects when it is adopted and therefore it does not specifically relate to actual projects?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30.

(2)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1).
Case T-435/20: Action brought on 7 July 2020 — JR v Commission
Date: 2020-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU)








C_2020297EN.01004401.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/44






Action brought on 7 July 2020 — JR v Commission
(Case T-435/20)
(2020/C 297/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: JR (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well founded;










—


consequently:






—


annul the decision of 15 April 2020 in that it rejects the applicant’s request for review of the decision of the competition selection board of 16 December 2019 not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD6) — 1 — Administrators, and, if needed, annul that decision of 16 December 2019;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.









Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and breach of the rules governing the proceedings of the selection board.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and breach of the principle of good administration.
Case T-419/20: Action brought on 7 July 2020 — Deutsche Kreditbank v SRB
Date: 2020-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, banking supervision, company in difficulties, credit institution, financing plan, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, use of languages








C_2020279EN.01005501.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/55






Action brought on 7 July 2020 — Deutsche Kreditbank v SRB
(Case T-419/20)
(2020/C 279/69)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Deutsche Kreditbank AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Helle, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on nine pleas which are essentially identical or similar to the first, second, third, fourth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh pleas in law put forward in Case T-405/20 DZ Hyp v SRB.
Case T-420/20: Action brought on 7 July 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT8)
Date: 2020-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, electronic device, electronic game, micro-computer, mobile phone, registered trade mark, retail trade, software, trade-mark law








C_2020287EN.01003501.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/35






Action brought on 7 July 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT8)
(Case T-420/20)
(2020/C 287/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC and M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

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 GT8 — Application for registration No 14 738 281

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 in Case R 1611/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to identify specifically the relevant public;










—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to take into account the evidence as to the likely perception of the earlier European Union Trade mark by the relevant public;










—


Failure to consider the other elements of the above mentioned Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) objections;










—


Failure to apply national rules under Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament by failing to consider the other elements under passing off law.
Case C-301/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 July 2020 — UE, HC v Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG
Date: 2020-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: inheritance, law of succession, official document








C_2020313EN.01001301.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 July 2020 — UE, HC v Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG
(Case C-301/20)
(2020/C 313/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: UE, HC

Respondent: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG

Intervening party: Verlassenschaft des VJ

Question referred







1.


Is Article 70(3) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (‘the EU Succession Regulation’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a copy of the certificate issued for an indefinite duration without indicating an expiry date, contrary to that provision,






a.


is valid and effective indefinitely, or










b.


is valid only for a period of six months from the date of issue of the certified copy, or










c.


is valid only for a period of six months from another date, or










d.


is invalid and unsuitable for use within the meaning of Article 63 of the EU Succession Regulation?














2.


Is Article 65(1) of the EU Succession Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 69(3) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the certificate produces effects in favour of all persons who are mentioned on the certificate by name as heirs, legatees, executors of wills or administrators of the estate, with the result that even those who have not applied for the issue of the certificate themselves can use that certificate pursuant to Article 63 of the EU Succession Regulation?










3.


Must Article 69 of the EU Succession Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 70(3) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the legitimising effect of the certified copy of a certificate of succession must be recognised if it was still valid when it was first submitted but expired before the requested decision of the authority, or does that provision not preclude national law if the latter requires the certificate to be valid even at the time of the decision?






(1)  OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107.
Case T-418/20: Action brought on 7 July 2020 — GitLab v EUIPO — Gitlab (GitLab)
Date: 2020-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, service, software, trade-mark law








C_2020279EN.01005401.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/54






Action brought on 7 July 2020 — GitLab v EUIPO — Gitlab (GitLab)
(Case T-418/20)
(2020/C 279/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: GitLab BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Lorente Berges, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gitlab OÜ (Tallinn, Estonia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark GitLab — European Union trade mark No 13 751 169

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 May 2020 in Case R 2001/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 6 July 2020 2020/C 223/04
Date: 2020-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020223EN.01001701.xml










7.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/17






Euro exchange rates (1)

6 July 2020
(2020/C 223/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1325 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,78 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4516 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90505 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4848 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0642 




ISK


Iceland króna


157,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,6218 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,705 




HUF


Hungarian forint


352,83 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4689 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8375 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,7743 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6230 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5333 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7769 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7293 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5753 




KRW


South Korean won


1 350,51 




ZAR


South African rand


19,2761 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9498 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5610 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 328,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8441 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,871 




RUB


Russian rouble


81,3769 




THB


Thai baht


35,158 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,9745 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,1207 




INR


Indian rupee


84,4535 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.