do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Cases T-150/18 and T-345/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — BNP Paribas v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Contribution to the deposit guarantee scheme or to the single resolution fund by way of irrevocable payment commitments — Tasks conferred on the ECB — ECB’s specific supervision powers — Article 4(1)(f), Article 16(1)(c) and Article 16(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Measure imposing the deduction of the cumulative sum of outstanding irrevocable payment commitments from Common Equity Tier 1 — Absence of individual examination)
Date: 2020-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank deposit, banking supervision, credit institution, financial supervision, guarantee, payment








C_2020378EN.01002702.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/27






Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — BNP Paribas v ECB
(Cases T-150/18 and T-345/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Contribution to the deposit guarantee scheme or to the single resolution fund by way of irrevocable payment commitments - Tasks conferred on the ECB - ECB’s specific supervision powers - Article 4(1)(f), Article 16(1)(c) and Article 16(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Measure imposing the deduction of the cumulative sum of outstanding irrevocable payment commitments from Common Equity Tier 1 - Absence of individual examination)
(2020/C 378/32)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: BNP Paribas (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: E. Koupepidou, R. Bax and F. Bonnard, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-R0MUWSFPU8MPRO8K5P83/248 of the ECB of 19 December 2017, Decision ECB-SSM-2018-FRBNP-17 of the ECB of 26 April 2018, and Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRBNP-12 of the ECB of 14 February 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Joins Cases T-150/18 and T-345/18 for the purposes of the present judgment;










2.


Annuls paragraphs 9.1 to 9.3 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-R0MUWSFPU8MPRO8K5P83/248 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017, paragraphs 9.1 to 9.3 of Decision ECB-SSM-2018-FRBNP-17 of the ECB of 26 April 2018, and paragraphs 8.1 to 8.4 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRBNP-12 of the ECB of 14 February 2019;










3.


Orders the ECB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Case T-645/19: Order of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — IMG v Commission (Action for annulment — Development cooperation — Implementing the EU budget in indirect management — Execution of a judgment of the Court of Justice — Commission letter requesting that certain documents be provided — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory measure — Inadmissibility — Action for damages — Close link with the claim for annulment — Lis pendens — Inadmissibility — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, Myanmar/Burma, admissibility, damages, development aid, financing of aid, general budget (EU), implementation of the budget, indemnification, international organisation








C_2020378EN.01003501.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/35






Order of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — IMG v Commission
(Case T-645/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Development cooperation - Implementing the EU budget in indirect management - Execution of a judgment of the Court of Justice - Commission letter requesting that certain documents be provided - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory measure - Inadmissibility - Action for damages - Close link with the claim for annulment - Lis pendens - Inadmissibility - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2020/C 378/44)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: International Management Group (IMG) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and J.-Y. de Cara, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and J. Norris, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the letter of the Commission of 18 July 2019 by which the Commission, in execution of the judgment of 31 January 2019, International Management Group v Commission (C-183/17 P and C-184/17 P, EU:C:2019:78), requests the applicant to provide certain documents and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that letter and of the Commission decisions annulled by that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment







1)


The action is dismissed.










2)


International Management Group (IMG) is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Case T-565/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — P. Krücken Organic v Commission (Institutional law — Action for damages — Conditions in which the European Union incurs non-contractual liability — Arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries — Private inspection body — Concept of appropriate supervision within the meaning of Article 33(3) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 — Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 — Attributability of conduct)
Date: 2020-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, confectionery product, food inspection, import (EU), organic certification, organic product, originating product, sesame, surveillance concerning imports








C_2020390EN.01002801.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/28






Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — P. Krücken Organic v Commission
(Case T-565/18) (1)

(Institutional law - Action for damages - Conditions in which the European Union incurs non-contractual liability - Arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries - Private inspection body - Concept of appropriate supervision within the meaning of Article 33(3) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 - Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 - Attributability of conduct)
(2020/C 390/39)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: P. Krücken Organic GmbH (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers, B. Hofstötter and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result, first, of the alleged infringement by the Commission of its duties under Article 33(3) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (OJ 2007 L 189, p. 1) and, second, of certain conduct on the part of Ecocert SA allegedly attributable to the Commission.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders P. Krücken Organic GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Case T-144/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Kludi v EUIPO — Adlon Brand (ADLON) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ADLON — Earlier EU word mark ADLON — Proof of the reputation of the earlier mark — Rule 19 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Temporal application of the law — Late submission of documents — Board of Appeal’s discretion — Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)
Date: 2020-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic equipment, plumbing equipment, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, water treatment








C_2020378EN.01003001.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/30






Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Kludi v EUIPO — Adlon Brand (ADLON)
(Case T-144/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ADLON - Earlier EU word mark ADLON - Proof of the reputation of the earlier mark - Rule 19 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Temporal application of the law - Late submission of documents - Board of Appeal’s discretion - Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)
(2020/C 378/35)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Kludi GmbH & Co. KG (Menden, Germany) (represented by: A. Zafar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Adlon Brand GmbH & Co. KG (Düren, Germany) (represented by: P. Baronikians, E. Saarmann and N. Dimmler, lawyers)

Re

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2018 (Case R 1500/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Adlon Brand and Kludi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Kludi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Case T-187/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Glaxo Group Ltd v EUIPO (Shade of the colour purple) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a shade of the colour purple — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, respiratory disease, trade-mark law








C_2020378EN.01003002.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/30






Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Glaxo Group Ltd v EUIPO (Shade of the colour purple)
(Case T-187/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a shade of the colour purple - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2020/C 378/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, S. Baran, Barrister, and R. Jacob, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2019 (Case R 1870/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of a shade of the colour purple as an EU trade mark:

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Glaxo Group Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Case T-589/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Gothe and Kunz v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FAIR ZONE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark FAIR ZONE — Earlier EU word mark FAIR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, protective equipment, registered trade mark, sports equipment, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2020378EN.01003101.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/31






Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Gothe and Kunz v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FAIR ZONE)
(Case T-589/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark FAIR ZONE - Earlier EU word mark FAIR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 378/37)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Oliver Gothe (Cologne, Germany) and Martin Kunz (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Kruse, 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 the EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen, and M. Minkner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 3 July 2019 (Case R 2253/2018-4), concerning opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Aldi Einkauf and, on the other hand, Mr Gothe and Mr Kunz.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


The action is dismissed;










2.


Mr Oliver Gothe and Mr Martin Kunz are ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.