do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-733/20: Action brought on 16 December 2020 — Freundlieb v EUIPO (BANDIT)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, leather, protective equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021044EN.01005902.xml










8.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/59






Action brought on 16 December 2020 — Freundlieb v EUIPO (BANDIT)
(Case T-733/20)
(2021/C 44/82)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Andreas Freundlieb (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark BANDIT — EU trade mark No 1 205 061

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2020 in Case R 730/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and order that his rights in EU trade mark No 1 205 061 be re-established in accordance with his application;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 104(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-637/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Bawtry Carbon International v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Environment — Classification, labelling and packaging of certain substances and mixtures — Classification of pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) toxic substance and as an Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) toxic substance — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: classification, damages, environmental impact, labelling, petroleum product, scientific progress, technological change, toxic substance, water pollutant








C_2021044EN.01004502.xml










8.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/45






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Bawtry Carbon International v Commission
(Case T-637/18) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Environment - Classification, labelling and packaging of certain substances and mixtures - Classification of pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) toxic substance and as an Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) toxic substance - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)
(2021/C 44/67)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bawtry Carbon International Ltd (Doncaster, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, S. Saez Moreno and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin, R. Lindenthal and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz, acting as Agent), European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 of 2 October 2013 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), in so far as that regulation classified pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bawtry Carbon International Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.
Case T-118/20: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Voco v EUIPO (Shape of packaging) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of packaging — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dental medicine, packaging product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021062EN.01003001.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/30






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Voco v EUIPO (Shape of packaging)
(Case T-118/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of packaging - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 62/36)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Voco GmbH (Cuxhaven, Germany) (represented by: C. Spintig and S. Pietzcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Cottrell and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2019 (Case R 978/2019-5) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of packaging as an EU trade mark.

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 4 December 2019 (Case R 978/2019-5);










2.


Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.
Case T-418/18: Order of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — PT v EIB
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, dismissal, indemnification, rights of the defence








C_2021053EN.01006702.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/67






Order of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — PT v EIB
(Case T-418/18) (1)

(2021/C 53/85)
Language of the case: Swedish
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.
Case T-315/19: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — BT v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Surviving spouse — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Conditions for eligibility — Duration of the marriage — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Proportionality)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, distribution by age, equal treatment, legality, marriage, married person, principle of proportionality, staff regulations (EU), survivor's benefit








C_2021062EN.01002702.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/27






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — BT v Commission
(Case T-315/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Surviving spouse - Survivor’s pension - Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Conditions for eligibility - Duration of the marriage - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Proportionality)
(2021/C 62/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: BT (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant: International Association of Former Officials of the European Union (AIACE International) (represented by: J. Van Rossum, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and J. Steele, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 July 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for a survivor’s pension.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 20 July 2018 rejecting BT’s request for a survivor’s pension;










2.


Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by BT;










3.


Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs;










4.


Orders the International Association of Former Officials of the European Union (AIACE International) to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Case T-541/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission (Dumping — Imports of tartaric acid originating in China — Extension of a definitive anti-dumping duty — Determination of the normal value — Protocol of Accession of China to the WTO — Analogue country methodology — Article 2(7) and Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Vulnerability of the Union industry — Likelihood of recurrence of injury — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), organic acid, originating product, rights of the defence








C_2021062EN.01002601.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/26






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission
(Case T-541/18) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of tartaric acid originating in China - Extension of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Determination of the normal value - Protocol of Accession of China to the WTO - Analogue country methodology - Article 2(7) and Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Vulnerability of the Union industry - Likelihood of recurrence of injury - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)
(2021/C 62/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and P. Billiet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Demeneix and M. França, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Distillerie Bonollo SpA (Formigine, Italy), Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA (Borgoricco, Italy), Caviro Distillerie Srl (Faenza, Italy) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/921 of 28 June 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2018 L 164, p. 14).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.
Case T-639/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — SGL Carbon v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Environment — Classification, labelling and packaging of certain substances and mixtures — Classification of pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) toxic substance and as an Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) toxic substance — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: classification, damages, environmental impact, labelling, petroleum product, scientific progress, technological change, toxic substance, water pollutant








C_2021044EN.01004701.xml










8.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/47






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — SGL Carbon v Commission
(Case T-639/18) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Environment - Classification, labelling and packaging of certain substances and mixtures - Classification of pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) toxic substance and as an Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) toxic substance - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)
(2021/C 44/69)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: SGL Carbon SE (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, S. Saez Moreno and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin, R. Lindenthal and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz, acting as Agent), European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 of 2 October 2013 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), in so far as that regulation classified pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders SGL Carbon SE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.
Case T-638/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Deza v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Environment — Classification, labelling and packaging of certain substances and mixtures — Classification of pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) toxic substance and as an Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) toxic substance — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: classification, damages, environmental impact, labelling, petroleum product, scientific progress, technological change, toxic substance, water pollutant








C_2021044EN.01004601.xml










8.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/46






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Deza v Commission
(Case T-638/18) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Environment - Classification, labelling and packaging of certain substances and mixtures - Classification of pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) toxic substance and as an Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) toxic substance - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)
(2021/C 44/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, S. Saez Moreno and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin, R. Lindenthal and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz, acting as Agent), European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 of 2 October 2013 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), in so far as that regulation classified pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Deza, a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10071 — De Agostini Group/Foodiverse/Alnut) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 3/02
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, food industry, investment company, merger control








C_2021003EN.01000201.xml










6.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 3/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10071 — De Agostini Group/Foodiverse/Alnut)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 3/02)
On 16 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 32020M10071. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-883/19: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO — Helixor Heilmittel (HELIX ELIXIR) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark HELIX ELIXIR — Earlier EU word mark HELIXOR — 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: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food supplement, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vitamin








C_2021053EN.01003901.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/39






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO — Helixor Heilmittel (HELIX ELIXIR)
(Case T-883/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark HELIX ELIXIR - Earlier EU word mark HELIXOR - 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 53/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez López and J. Mora Cortés, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Helixor Heilmittel GmbH (Rosenfeld, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2019 (Case R 100/2019-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Helixor Heilmittel and Gustopharma Consumer Health.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL, to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Case T-438/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Pareto Trading v EUIPO — Bikor and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics (BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH — Absolute ground for refusal — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, cultural event, hairdressing and beauty care, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021053EN.01003301.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/33






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Pareto Trading v EUIPO — Bikor and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics (BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH)
(Case T-438/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH - Absolute ground for refusal - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 53/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pareto Trading Co., Inc. (Carlstadt, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: I. Sempere Massa, C. Martínez-Tercero Molina and V. Balaguer Fuentes, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Elżbieta Korbut Bikor (Gdańsk, Poland) and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics Małgorzata Wedekind (Gdańsk)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2018 (Case R 1826/2015-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Pareto Trading, on the one hand, and Ms Bikor and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics Małgorzata Wedekind, on the other.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Pareto Trading Co., Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.