do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-310/20 P: Appeal brought on 10 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-446/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2020-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, retail selling, trade-mark law








C_2021035EN.01002001.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/20






Appeal brought on 10 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-446/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-310/20 P)
(2021/C 35/28)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (represented by: P. Lange, A. Auler, M. Wenz and C. Möller, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg
By order of 29 October 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Case C-312/20 P: Appeal brought on 10 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-534/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2020-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2021035EN.01002003.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/20






Appeal brought on 10 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-534/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-312/20 P)
(2021/C 35/30)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (represented by: P. Lange, A. Auler, M. Wenz and C. Möller, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg
By order of 29 October 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 9 July 2020 2020/C 227/05
Date: 2020-07-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020227EN.01000501.xml










10.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

9 July 2020
(2020/C 227/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1342 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,67 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4503 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89655 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3970 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0634 




ISK


Iceland króna


158,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,6173 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,622 




HUF


Hungarian forint


354,25 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4655 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8408 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,7845 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6239 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5314 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7901 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7223 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5774 




KRW


South Korean won


1 354,35 




ZAR


South African rand


19,0691 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9230 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5365 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 326,81 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8345 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,062 




RUB


Russian rouble


80,0425 




THB


Thai baht


35,381 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,0520 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,6985 




INR


Indian rupee


85,0455 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-440/20: Action brought on 10 July 2020 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission
Date: 2020-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, cast-iron, customs debt, import (EU), originating product, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, retroactivity of a law, right to justice








C_2020297EN.01004402.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/44






Action brought on 10 July 2020 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission
(Case T-440/20)
(2020/C 297/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India), Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/527 of 15 April 2020 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India as regards Jindal Saw Limited following the judgment of the General Court in T-301/16;










—


order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and of the general principle of non-retroactivity.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of non-retroactivity and the general principle of legal certainty.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and Article 264 TFEU.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and Article 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 103 of the Union Customs Code and Article 296 TFEU.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the Commission to impose registration of Jindal’s imports and infringement of Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9868 – Raytheon Technologies Corporation/Saudi Arabian Oil Company/Middle East Cyber Services JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 278/01
Date: 2020-07-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aerospace industry, company with share capital, defence policy, economic concentration, information security, merger control, mining industry, provision of services








C_2020278EN.01000101.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9868 – Raytheon Technologies Corporation/Saudi Arabian Oil Company/Middle East Cyber Services JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 278/01)
On 10 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 32020M9868. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9893 – C&G/Fischer/Craftnote) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 227/11
Date: 2020-07-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building services, economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control, technology, toy industry, vehicle parts, wholesale trade








C_2020227EN.01001601.xml










10.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/16






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9893 – C&G/Fischer/Craftnote)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 227/11)

1.   
On 3 July 2020, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Cordes & Graefe KG (‘Cordes & Graefe’, Germany);










—


fischerwerke GmbH & Co. KG (‘Fischer’, Germany); and










—


myCraftnote Digital GmbH (‘Craftnote’, Germany), under sole control of Fischer.




C&G and Fischer acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Craftnote.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Cordes & Graefe: a wholesaler in the area of sanitary, heating and air‐conditioning products, roofing technology, electrical products, civil engineering products and industrial technology in several Member States;










—


Fischer: production of fastening technology, automotive interiors, as well as consulting (business consultancy) and production of construction toys on a global basis; and










—


Craftnote: development and distribution of hardware and software for service providers and craft businesses, including the associated services.






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9893 – C&G/Fischer/Craftnote
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-311/20 P: Appeal brought on 10 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-444/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2020-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021035EN.01002002.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/20






Appeal brought on 10 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-444/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-311/20 P)
(2021/C 35/29)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (represented by: P. Lange, A. Auler, M. Wenz and C. Möller, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg
By order of 29 October 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Case T-441/20: Action brought on 10 July 2020 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission
Date: 2020-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: India, cast-iron, countervailing charge, customs debt, import (EU), originating product, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, retroactivity of a law, right to justice








C_2020297EN.01004501.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/45






Action brought on 10 July 2020 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission
(Case T-441/20)
(2020/C 297/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India), Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/526 of 15 April 2020 re-imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India as regards Jindal Saw Limited following the judgment of the General Court in T-300/16;










—


order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 and of the general principle of non-retroactivity.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of non-retroactivity and the general principle of legal certainty.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and Article 264 TFEU.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and Article 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 103 of the Union Customs Code and Article 296 TFEU.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the Commission to impose registration of Jindal’s imports and infringement of Article 24(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.
Case T-616/19: Order of the General Court of 10 July 2020 — Katjes Fassin v EUIPO — Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium (WONDERLAND) (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark WONDERLAND — Earlier Benelux word mark WONDERMIX — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2020-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020348EN.01001401.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/14






Order of the General Court of 10 July 2020 — Katjes Fassin v EUIPO — Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium (WONDERLAND)
(Case T-616/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark WONDERLAND - Earlier Benelux word mark WONDERMIX - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2020/C 348/20)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmitz and M. Breuer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Tiemann and C. Elkemann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2019 (Case R 2164/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium and Katjes Fassin.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










2.


Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG shall pay its own costs and those incurred, in connection with the present proceedings, by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium BV.






(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
Case C-304/20 P: Appeal brought on 10 July 2020 by Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2020 in Case T-108/19, Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO
Date: 2020-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, adjuvant, beverage, dental medicine, food additive, foodstuff, fruit, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vegetable








C_2021009EN.01000402.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/4






Appeal brought on 10 July 2020 by Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2020 in Case T-108/19, Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO
(Case C-304/20 P)
(2021/C 9/06)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 29 October 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl shall bear its own costs.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9897 — Actineo/SHAM/Antevis JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 227/10
Date: 2020-07-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: claim, economic concentration, health care, insurance, merger control, provision of services








C_2020227EN.01001401.xml










10.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/14






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9897 — Actineo/SHAM/Antevis JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 227/10)

1.   

On 3 July 2020, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).


This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Société Hospitalière d'Assurances Mutuelles (‘SHAM’, France),










—


Actineo GmbH (‘Actineo’, Germany),










—


Antevis SAS (‘Antevis’, France)




SHAM and Actineo acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Antevis.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


SHAM: Non-life insurance, in particular medical malpractice insurance;










—


Actineo: Services in holistic personal injury insurance management;










—


Antevis: Services to medical malpractice insurers in the field of claims management (through the extraction and processing of medical data), medical evaluation services and development of medical malpractice bodily injury claims risks analysis and scoring models.






3.   

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.


Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.   

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.


Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9897 – Actineo/SHAM/Antevis JV
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-138/20: Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — O. v P. AG
Date: 2020-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EC conformity marking, approval, consumer protection, market approval, motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, pollution control measures, transfer of property, used goods, vehicle parts








C_2020329EN.01001303.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/13






Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — O. v P. AG
(Case C-138/20) (1)

(2020/C 329/29)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
Case C-305/20 P: Appeal brought on 10 July 2020 by Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2020 in Case T-109/19, Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO
Date: 2020-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, adjuvant, beverage, dental medicine, food additive, foodstuff, fruit, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vegetable








C_2021009EN.01000501.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/5






Appeal brought on 10 July 2020 by Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2020 in Case T-109/19, Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO
(Case C-305/20 P)
(2021/C 9/07)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 29 October 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl shall bear its own costs.
Special Report 15/2020 ‘Protection of wild pollinators in the EU – Commission initiatives have not borne fruit’ 2020/C 227/07
Date: 2020-07-10
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU programme, apiculture, biodiversity, ecosystem, insect, plant health legislation, plant health product, protection of animals








C_2020227EN.01000801.xml










10.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/8






Special Report 15/2020
‘Protection of wild pollinators in the EU – Commission initiatives have not borne fruit’
(2020/C 227/07)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report 15/2020 ‘Protection of wild pollinators in the EU – Commission initiatives have not borne fruit’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu