do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-449/20: Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Banque postale v SRB
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, company in difficulties, equal treatment, financial risk, financing plan, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality








C_2020304EN.01001702.xml










14.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/17






Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Banque postale v SRB
(Case T-449/20)
(2020/C 304/21)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: La Banque postale (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul decision SRB/ES/2020/24 on the calculation of the 2020 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:






—


Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;










—


Articles 4(2), 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto;










—


Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;














—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-444/20, Société générale and Others v SRB.
Case T-328/19: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Scorify v EUIPO — Scor (SCORIFY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark SCORIFY — Earlier EU word mark SCOR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, banking, consultancy, financial services, insurance, real estate business, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020313EN.01002602.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/26






Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Scorify v EUIPO — Scor (SCORIFY)
(Case T-328/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark SCORIFY - Earlier EU word mark SCOR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 313/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Scorify UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: V. Viešūnaitė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Botis and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Scor SE (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and C. de Callataÿ, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2019 (Case R 1639/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Scor and Scorisk.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Scorify UAB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Case T-446/20: Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v SRB
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, company in difficulties, equal treatment, financial risk, financing plan, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality








C_2020304EN.01001502.xml










14.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/15






Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v SRB
(Case T-446/20)
(2020/C 304/18)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Paris, France) and the 25 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul decision SRB/ES/2020/24 on the calculation of the 2020 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants;










—


pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:






—


Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;










—


Articles 4(2), 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto;










—


Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;














—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-444/20, Société générale and Others v SRB.
Case T-20/19: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark mediFLEX easystep — Earlier EU figurative mark Stepeasy — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020313EN.01002501.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/25






Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep)
(Case T-20/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark mediFLEX easystep - Earlier EU figurative mark Stepeasy - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 313/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pablosky, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Centell, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, 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: docPrice GmbH (Koblenz, Germany) (represented by: K. Landes, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 (Case R 77/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pablosky and docPrice.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 November 2018 (Case R 77/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pablosky, SL and docPrice GmbH, in so far as it concerns ‘clothing’ and ‘headgear’ in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement;










2.


Dismisses the appeal which docPrice brought before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO in so far as it concerns the goods referred to in point 1;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
Case T-21/19: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easySTEP) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark mediFLEX easySTEP — Earlier EU figurative mark Stepeasy — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020313EN.01002601.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/26






Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easySTEP)
(Case T-21/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark mediFLEX easySTEP - Earlier EU figurative mark Stepeasy - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 313/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pablosky, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Centell, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, 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: docPrice GmbH (Koblenz, Germany) (represented by: K. Landes, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 (Case R 76/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pablosky and docPrice.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 November 2018 (Case R 76/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pablosky, SL and docPrice GmbH, in so far as it concerns ‘clothing’ and ‘headgear’ in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement;










2.


Dismisses the appeal which docPrice brought before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO in so far as it concerns the goods referred to in point 1;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
Case T-533/19: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Artur Florêncio & Filhos, Affsports v EUIPO — Anadeco Gestion (sflooring) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark sflooring — Earlier national word mark T-FLOORING — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, carpet, floor coverings, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020339EN.01001602.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/16






Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Artur Florêncio & Filhos, Affsports v EUIPO — Anadeco Gestion (sflooring)
(Case T-533/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark sflooring - Earlier national word mark T-FLOORING - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2020/C 339/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Artur Florêncio & Filhos, Affsports Lda (Sintra, Portugal) (represented by: D. Martins Pereira Soares, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Anadeco Gestion, SA (Cartagena, Spain) (represented by: J. Erdozain Lopez and J. Galan Lopez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2019 (Case R 1870/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Anadeco Gestion and Artur Florêncio & Filhos, Affsports.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 May 2019 (Case R 1870/2018-4);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO and Anadeco Gestion, SA to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Artur Florêncio & Filhos, Affsports Lda before the General Court and the Board of Appeal.






(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
Case T-332/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Ocean Capital Administration and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds — List of persons and entities to whom those measures apply — Inclusion of the applicants’ names)
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, abuse of power, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, right of establishment, rights of the defence








C_2020313EN.01002201.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/22






Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Ocean Capital Administration and Others v Council
(Case T-332/15) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds - List of persons and entities to whom those measures apply - Inclusion of the applicants’ names)
(2020/C 313/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Ocean Capital Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex (represented by: P. Moser QC, E. Metcalfe, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, based on Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/556 of 7 April 2015 amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2015 L 92, p. 101), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/549 of 7 April 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2015 L 92, p. 12), in so far as those acts concern the applicants, and, second, an application based on Article 277 TFEU for a declaration of the inapplicability of Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 46), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ocean Capital Administration GmbH and the other applicants, whose names are set out in the annex, to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Case T-800/19: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Austria Tabak v EUIPO — Mignot & De Block (AIR) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark AIR — Genuine use of the mark — Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Alteration of distinctive character)
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2020339EN.01002002.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/20






Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Austria Tabak v EUIPO — Mignot & De Block (AIR)
(Case T-800/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark AIR - Genuine use of the mark - Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Alteration of distinctive character)
(2020/C 339/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Austria Tabak GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero and R. Ahijón Lana, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mignot & De Block BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Körber, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2019 (Case R 1665/2018 4), concerning revocation proceedings between Mignot & De Block and Austria Tabak.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Austria Tabak GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Case T-686/19: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Euroapotheca v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GNC LIVE WELL) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark GNC LIVE WELL — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business management, consultancy, dietary product, food supplement, human nutrition, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2020339EN.01001802.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/18






Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Euroapotheca v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GNC LIVE WELL)
(Case T-686/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark GNC LIVE WELL - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2020/C 339/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Euroapotheca UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Žabolienė and E. Saukalas, lawyers)

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2019 (Case R 2189/2018-5) concerning revocation proceedings between Euroapotheca and General Nutrition Investment Company.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Euroapotheca UAB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Case T-110/17: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission (Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China — Undertakings — Admissibility — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2146 — Invalidation of undertaking invoices — Temporal application of new provisions)
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping legislation, anti-subsidy proceeding, application of EU law, import (EU), invoicing, originating product, photovoltaic cell, semi-metal








C_2020329EN.01001401.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/14






Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission
(Case T-110/17) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China - Undertakings - Admissibility - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2146 - Invalidation of undertaking invoices - Temporal application of new provisions)
(2020/C 329/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China) (represented by: Y. Melin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Kuplewatzky and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, and by N. Tuominen, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2146 of 7 December 2016 withdrawing the acceptance of the undertaking for two exporting producers under Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures (OJ 2016 L 333, p. 4), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2146 of 7 December 2016 withdrawing the acceptance of the undertaking for two exporting producers under Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures, in so far as it concerns Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Case C-303/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 8 July 2020 — Ultimo Portfolio Investment (Luxembourg) S.A. v KM
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, financial situation, offence, penalty








C_2020329EN.01000501.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 8 July 2020 — Ultimo Portfolio Investment (Luxembourg) S.A. v KM
(Case C-303/20)
(2020/C 329/06)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ultimo Portfolio Investment (Luxembourg) S.A.

Defendant: KM

Question referred

Does the penalty of liability for a petty offence that is imposed in Article 138c(1) of the Polish Kodeks wykroczeń (Code of Petty Offences) for a failure to comply with the obligation to assess a consumer’s creditworthiness laid down in Article 8(1) of 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 (1) constitute proper and sufficient implementation of the requirement, imposed on the Member State in Article 23 of that directive, to lay down in national law effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for a breach by the creditor of the obligation to assess the creditworthiness of a consumer?


(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.
Case T-445/20: Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Crédit agricole and Others v SRB
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, company in difficulties, equal treatment, financial risk, financing plan, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality








C_2020304EN.01001501.xml










14.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/15






Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Crédit agricole and Others v SRB
(Case T-445/20)
(2020/C 304/17)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and the 48 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul decision SRB/ES/2020/24 on the calculation of the 2020 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants;










—


pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:






—


Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;










—


Articles 4(2), 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto;










—


Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;














—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-444/20, Société générale and Others v SRB.