do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9973 — SK Capital Partners/Venator Materials) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 434/02
Date: 2020-12-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2020434EN.01000201.xml










15.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9973 — SK Capital Partners/Venator Materials)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 434/02)
On 9 December 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 32020M9973. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-190/20: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2020 — Almea v EUIPO — Sanacorp Pharmahandel (Almea) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Almea — Earlier national word mark MEA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-12-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, baby food, cosmetic product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2021035EN.01004901.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/49






Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2020 — Almea v EUIPO — Sanacorp Pharmahandel (Almea)
(Case T-190/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Almea - Earlier national word mark MEA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 35/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Almea Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Furneaux and E. Humphreys, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sanacorp Pharmahandel GmbH (Planegg, Germany) (represented by: I. M. Helbig, S. Rengshausen and S. Cobet-Nüse, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2020 (Case R 246/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Sanacorp Pharmahandel and Almea.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Almea Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Case T-621/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2020 — Ace of spades v EUIPO — Krupp and Borrmann (JC JEAN CALL Champagne GRANDE RÉSERVE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the three-dimensional EU trade mark JC JEAN CALL Champagne GRANDE RÉSERVE — Earlier three-dimensional EU trade marks — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the signs — 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: 2020-12-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, champagne, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021035EN.01004501.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/45






Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2020 — Ace of spades v EUIPO — Krupp and Borrmann (JC JEAN CALL Champagne GRANDE RÉSERVE)
(Case T-621/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the three-dimensional EU trade mark JC JEAN CALL Champagne GRANDE RÉSERVE - Earlier three-dimensional EU trade marks - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the signs - 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))
(2021/C 35/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ace of spades Holdings LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gerhard Ernst Krupp (Munich, Germany), Elmar Borrmann (Reith, Austria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2019 (Case R 2/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ace of spades Holdings and Messrs Krupp and Borrmann.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 June 2019 (Case R 2/2019-5) in so far as it dismissed the appeal brought by Ace of spades Holdings LLC and rejected the opposition based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Case T-721/20: Action brought on 9 December 2020 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v NG
Date: 2020-12-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, distribution of EU funding, eligibility criteria, reimbursement of aid, wage cost








C_2021035EN.01005801.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/58






Action brought on 9 December 2020 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v NG
(Case T-721/20)
(2021/C 35/77)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer, and B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent)

Defendant: NG

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


order the defendant to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 141 094,80 in relation to Grant Agreement No 632 506 ‘Wireless Flexible sensor co-operation for structural health Diagnosis/prognosis’ under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union, together with interest at the rate of 3,5 % set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, from 9 July 2019 until the date of actual payment;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law:
The defendant failed to fulfil its contractual obligations by failing to reimburse the amount relating to staff costs, held not to be eligible for funding. As a result, the applicant issued, on 23 May 2019, a debit note for the amount of EUR 141 094,80 already paid to Alpha Consulting Service Srl, in accordance with the provisions of the grant agreement. There is no doubt whatsoever in the present case as to the facts giving rise to the obligations incumbent on the defendant as shareholder and representative of Alpha Consulting Service Srl, which has been removed from the commercial register. The objections made by that company after the debit note was issued are generic, incomplete and not supported by evidence and, therefore, appear to be entirely unfounded. As a result, the applicant is entitled to seek recovery and reimbursement of the amount paid, plus default interest.
Decision (EU) 2021/4 taken by common accord between the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 9 December 2020 on the location of the seat of the European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Competence Centre
Date: 2020-12-09
Institutions: Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Subjects: Bucharest — Ilfov, EU office or agency, Romania, computer crime, data protection, information security, operation of the Institutions, research and development, seat of institution, technology








L_2021004EN.01000701.xml










7.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 4/7








            DECISION (EU) 2021/4 TAKEN BY COMMON ACCORD BETWEEN THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
         
of 9 December 2020
         
on the location of the seat of the European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Competence Centre


THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 341 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The establishment of the European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Competence Centre (‘the Competence Centre’) is envisaged on the basis of the proposal submitted by the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on 12 September 2018.












(2)


The location of the seat of the Competence Centre should be determined,





HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Competence Centre shall have its seat in Bucharest, Romania.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.


Article 3
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 9 December 2020.


The President

P. LOURTIE
Case T-705/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2020 — GV v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Rejection of the request — Interests of the service — Equivalence of posts — Reasonable period — Absence of prima facie evidence — Responsibility)
Date: 2020-12-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, harassment at work, indemnification, psychological harassment, reassignment








C_2021035EN.01004602.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/46






Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2020 — GV v Commission
(Case T-705/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Rejection of the request - Interests of the service - Equivalence of posts - Reasonable period - Absence of prima facie evidence - Responsibility)
(2021/C 35/60)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: GV (represented by: B.-H. Vincent, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, M. Brauhoff and T. Lilamand, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Commission of 5 February 2019 rejecting the applicant's request for assistance and, second, compensation for the physical and psychological harm that the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders GV to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.