do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-602/19: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Eugène Perma France v EUIPO — SPI Investments Group (NATURANOVE) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark NATURANOVE — Earlier EU word mark NATURALIUM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020423EN.01003701.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/37






Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Eugène Perma France v EUIPO — SPI Investments Group (NATURANOVE)
(Case T-602/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark NATURANOVE - Earlier EU word mark NATURALIUM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 423/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Eugène Perma France (Saint-Denis, France) (represented by S. Havard Duclos, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: SPI Investments Group, SL (Sant Just Desvern, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2019 (Case R 2161/2018-4), concerning opposition proceedings between SPI Investments Group and Eugène Perma France.

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 1 July 2019 (Case R 2161/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between SPI Investments Group, SL and Eugène Perma France;










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including the costs necessarily incurred for the purposes of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal.






(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
Case T-616/20: Action brought on 5 October 2020 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Amigüitos pets & life (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect)
Date: 2020-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal feedingstuffs, dietary product, pet food, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2020399EN.01004202.xml










23.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/42






Action brought on 5 October 2020 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Amigüitos pets & life (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect)
(Case T-616/20)
(2020/C 399/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz and C. Elkemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Amigüitos pets & life, SA (Murcia, Spain)

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 figurative mark THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect in colours white, red and black — Application for registration No 15 385 719)

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 July 2020 in Case R 424/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceeding before the General Court and order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs before the EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 91(1) first sentence of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 46(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 46(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Joined Cases T-479/11 RENV and T-157/12 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — France and IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission (State aid — Oil exploration — State aid scheme implemented by France — Implied and unlimited guarantee conferred by IFPEN by the grant of the status of EPIC — Advantage — Presumption of the existence of an advantage — Proportionality)
Date: 2020-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, financial aid, oil industry, public institution








C_2020433EN.01004101.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/41






Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — France and IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission
(Joined Cases T-479/11 RENV and T-157/12 RENV) (1)

(State aid - Oil exploration - State aid scheme implemented by France - Implied and unlimited guarantee conferred by IFPEN by the grant of the status of EPIC - Advantage - Presumption of the existence of an advantage - Proportionality)
(2020/C 433/50)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant in Case T-479/11 RENV: French Republic (represented by: P. Dodeller, acting as Agent)

Applicant in Case T-157/12 RENV: IFP Énergies nouvelles (Rueil-Malmaison, France) (represented by: E. Lagathu and É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08)) (OJ 2012 L 14, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 6(1) in so far as it concerns the maximum impact of the State guarantee as estimated in Article 5(3) and (4) of Commission Decision 2012/26/EU of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08);










2.


Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission, the French Republic and IFP Énergies nouvelles each to bear their own costs in Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12;










4.


Orders the French Republic, IFP Énergies nouvelles and the Commission each to bear their own costs in Case C-438/16 P;










5.


Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-479/11 RENV;










6.


Orders IFP Énergies nouvelles and the Commission each to bear their own costs in Case T-157/12 RENV.






(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures 2020/C 327/08
Date: 2020-10-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), molybdenum, originating product, wire








C_2020327EN.01001801.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 327/18






Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2020/C 327/08)

1.   

As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.



2.   


Procedure



Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   


Time limit



Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit G-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

4.   
This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Molybdenum wires


The People’s Republic of China


Anti-dumping duty


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1046 of 28 June 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain molybdenum wires originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
(OJ L 170, 29.6.2016, p. 19)


30.6.2021







(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Notice for the attention of persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/1388 and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1387 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus 2020/C 327/03
Date: 2020-10-05
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2020327EN.01000301.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 327/3






Notice for the attention of persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/1388 and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1387 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus
(2020/C 327/03)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons designated in the Annex to Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP (1), as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/1388 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (3) as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1387 (4), concerning restrictive measures against Belarus.
The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the above‐mentioned Annexes should be included on the list or persons subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2012/642/CFSP and Regulation (EC) No 765/2006. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.
The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 3 of the Regulation).
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council before 31 December 2020, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu
Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, pursuant to Article 8(2) of Decision 2012/642/CFSP and Article 8a(4) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, of the list of designated persons and entities.


(1)  OJ L 285, 17.10.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 319 I, 2.10.2020, p. 13


(3)  OJ L 134, 20.5.2006, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 319 I, 2.10.2020, p. 1
Case T-847/19: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — X-cen-tek v EUIPO — Altenloh, Brinck & Co. (PAX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark PAX — Earlier EU and international figurative marks SPAX — Relative ground for refusal — Dominant element — No counteraction — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Application of the law ratione temporis)
Date: 2020-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, glass, household article, precious metal, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020433EN.01004801.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/48






Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — X-cen-tek v EUIPO — Altenloh, Brinck & Co. (PAX)
(Case T-847/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark PAX - Earlier EU and international figurative marks SPAX - Relative ground for refusal - Dominant element - No counteraction - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Application of the law ratione temporis)
(2020/C 433/60)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG (Wardenburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hillers, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Altenloh, Brinck & Co. GmbH & Co. KG (Ennepetal, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 September 2019 (Case R 2324/2018-2) regarding opposition proceedings between Altenloh, Brinck & Co. and X-cen-tek.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Case T-625/20: Action brought on 5 October 2020 — Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises v Commission
Date: 2020-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to information, competition law, equal treatment, legal basis, restriction on competition, right to justice








C_2020433EN.01006002.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/60






Action brought on 5 October 2020 — Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises v Commission
(Case T-625/20)
(2020/C 433/75)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Les Mousquetaires (Paris, France), ITM Entreprises (Paris) (represented by: N. Jalabert-Doury and K. Mebarek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision dated 23 July 2020 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Alliance Casino and Intermarché);










—


Order the European Commission to pay the entirety of the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy, of Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 and 102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) and a lack of legal basis, in that the contested decision requires the applicants to identify meetings and to resubmit documents already dealt with by the Commission and since invalidated by the General Court of the European Union.
Case C-502/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 5 October 2020 — TP v Institut des Experts en Automobiles
Date: 2020-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consultancy, free movement of workers, freedom to provide services, professional qualifications, recognition of vocational training qualifications, right of establishment








C_2021035EN.01002301.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 5 October 2020 — TP v Institut des Experts en Automobiles
(Case C-502/20)
(2021/C 35/34)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TP

Defendant: Institut des Experts en Automobiles

Questions referred







1.


Can the provisions of Article 5[(1)(2)](b) and Article 6 of the Belgian Law of 15 May 2007 on the recognition and protection of the profession of automotive expert, read in conjunction with the provisions of the Law of 12 February 2008 establishing a general framework for the recognition of EU professional qualifications, in particular Articles 6, 8 and 9 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that a service provider who changes his or her place of establishment to another Member State cannot, after that change, be entered, in his or her country of origin (in this instance, Belgium), in the IEA’s register of temporary and occasional service providers with a view to pursuing temporary and occasional activity in that country? Is such an interpretation compatible with the freedom of establishment granted under EU law?










2.


Are the provisions of Article 5[(1)(2)](b) and Article 6 of the Belgian Law of 15 May 2007 on the recognition and protection of the profession of automotive expert, read in conjunction with the provisions of the Law of 12 February 2008 establishing a general framework for the recognition of EU professional qualifications, in particular Articles 6, 8 and 9 thereof, interpreted as meaning that the concept of temporary and occasional activity precludes the possibility for a service provider established in one Member State to provide services in another Member State if those services are to a degree recurrent, without being regular, or to possess some forms of infrastructure in that other Member State, compatible with the abovementioned provisions of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications? (1)







(1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.
Case T-51/19: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler (apiheal) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark apiheal — Earlier national word mark APIRETAL — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, plant health product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020423EN.01003401.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/34






Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler (apiheal)
(Case T-51/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark apiheal - Earlier national word mark APIRETAL - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2020/C 423/49)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. López Camba, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2018 (Case R 1725/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.