do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-371/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2020 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (FAKE DUCK) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark FAKE DUCK — Earlier EU figurative mark FAKE DUCK — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Relevant public — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal skin, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020371EN.01000902.xml










3.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/9






Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2020 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (FAKE DUCK)
(Case T-371/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark FAKE DUCK - Earlier EU figurative mark FAKE DUCK - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Relevant public - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 371/07)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Itinerant Show Room Srl (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: A. Visentin, M. Cartella and B. Cartella, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Save the Duck SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. De Vietro, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2019 (Case R 1117/2018-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Forest Srl and Itinerant Show Room.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Itinerant Show Room to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Case T-450/20: Action brought on 15 July 2020 — Tempora v Parliament
Date: 2020-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, offer price, tendering, transparency in decision-making








C_2020279EN.01006401.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/64






Action brought on 15 July 2020 — Tempora v Parliament
(Case T-450/20)
(2020/C 279/80)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Tempora (Forest, Belgium) (represented by: A. Delvaux and R. Simar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the action for annulment is admissible;










—


annul the decision, date unknown, by which the European Parliament decided to award the contract to SPRL IMAGINA EU;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision to award the contract to another tenderer in the context of call for tenders COMM/AWD/2019/421, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 15.2 of the tender specifications, breach of the duty of care and thoroughness, infringement of the principles of equality, competition and transparency, and breach of Article 170(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1) (‘Regulation 2018/1046’). In that regard, the applicant submits that the Parliament should have awarded it the contract, since SPRL IMAGINA EU did not have sufficient economic and financial resources and could not therefore be selected.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of point 23 of Annex I to Regulation 2018/1046 and of Article 16 of the tender specifications, infringement of the principles of equality, competition and transparency, and breach of the duty of care and thoroughness. The applicant submits that the prices submitted by SPRL IMAGINA EU in its offer are abnormally low and could not be accepted.