do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-768/20: Action brought on 31 December 2020 — Standard International Management v EUIPO — Asia Standard Management Services (The Standard)
Date: 2020-12-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, catering industry, clothing, hairdressing and beauty care, hotel industry, leather, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021062EN.01004101.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/41






Action brought on 31 December 2020 — Standard International Management v EUIPO — Asia Standard Management Services (The Standard)
(Case T-768/20)
(2021/C 62/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Standard International Management LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, S. Wickenden, Barrister and M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Asia Standard Management Services Ltd (Hong Kong, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark The Standard — European Union trade mark No 8 405 243

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2020 in Case R 828/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay to the applicant the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application;
alternatively, if the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes,










—


order EUIPO and that other party to be jointly and severally liable for those costs.





Pleas in law

The contested decision is vitiated for four principal reasons, namely the Board:






—


erred in law by failing to hold that advertising and offers for sale of the hotel and ancillary services, namely those in classes 38, 39, 41, 43 and 44, directed to EU consumers amounted to genuine use of the European Union trade mark in circumstances where those services were rendered in the United States;










—


erred in law by failing to hold that advertising and promotion of the relevant services was sufficient to prove genuine use for those services;










—


erred in law by failing to hold that advertising of the opening of the London hotel was relevant; and,










—


erred in law by failing to provide any, or any sufficient, reasoning for reaching the conclusion drawn at.
Case C-716/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 31 December 2020 — RTL Television GmbH v Grupo Pestana S.G.P.S., S.A., SALVOR — Sociedade de Investimento Hoteleiro, S.A.
Date: 2020-12-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: broadcasting, cable distribution, copyright, satellite communications, television equipment, transmission network








C_2021110EN.01002301.xml










29.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 110/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 31 December 2020 — RTL Television GmbH v Grupo Pestana S.G.P.S., S.A., SALVOR — Sociedade de Investimento Hoteleiro, S.A.
(Case C-716/20)
(2021/C 110/24)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RTL Television GmbH

Defendants: Grupo Pestana S.G.P.S., S.A., SALVOR — Sociedade de Investimento Hoteleiro, S.A.

Questions referred







1.


Must the concept of ‘cable retransmission’, as provided for in Article 1(3) of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993, (1) be interpreted as meaning that it covers, in addition to the simultaneous transmission by one broadcasting organisation of a broadcast by another broadcasting organisation, the distribution to the public, on a simultaneous basis and entirely by cable, of a primary broadcast of television or radio programmes intended for reception by the public (whether or not the person performing that distribution to the public is a broadcasting organisation)?










2.


Does the simultaneous distribution of the satellite broadcasts of a television channel, through television sets installed in hotel rooms, and by means of coaxial cable, constitute a retransmission of such broadcasts within the meaning of the concept provided for in Article 1(3) of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993?






(1)  Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (OJ 1993 L 248, p. 15).
Case T-765/20: Action brought on 31 December 2020 — The Floow v Commission
Date: 2020-12-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, debt, eligibility criteria, interest, research and development








C_2021088EN.01003302.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/33






Action brought on 31 December 2020 — The Floow v Commission
(Case T-765/20)
(2021/C 88/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: The Floow Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Howard, Barrister, and J. Berry, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, in whole or part, the decision of the Commission C(2020) 8138 final, dated 17 November 2020, ordering the recovery of Horizon 2020 grant monies amounting to EUR 161 990,80 plus interest, in respect of the audited period, and set aside the debit note referred to in Article 1 of the decision; or










—


in the alternative, remit the matter to the Commission to reconsider and restate the lower level of any deduction (if any) that may properly arise in light of the principles established by the Court; or










—


in the further alternative, exercise the Court’s own jurisdiction to restate the applicable adjustment that should apply in the light of any changes made to eligible direct and indirect costs, as the General Court considers appropriate; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed serious errors of law, assessment of fact, appreciation, lack of reasoning and procedural irregularities in assessing the compliance of applicant with the time-recording requirements in the Grant Agreement.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law, appreciation and reasoning in failing to ensure that the adjustments made to the declared costs were fair and proportionate in the light of all the circumstances.
Case T-729/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 31 December 2020 — Aurubis v Commission (Interim measures — Directive 2003/87/EC — Decision 2011/278/EU — System for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading — Application for interim measures — No urgency)
Date: 2020-12-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, industrial pollution








C_2021062EN.01003502.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/35






Order of the President of the General Court of 31 December 2020 — Aurubis v Commission
(Case T-729/20 R)
(Interim measures - Directive 2003/87/EC - Decision 2011/278/EU - System for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading - Application for interim measures - No urgency)
(2021/C 62/45)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Aurubis AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and J. Hoss, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. De Meester and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 279 TFEU and Article 156 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, seeking that the Commission be ordered to transfer 1 154 794 emission allowances to the account of the installation of the applicant by 31 December 2020 at the latest.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-711/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 31 December 2020 — TanQuid Polska Sp. z o. o. v Generální ředitelství cel
Date: 2020-12-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU customs procedure, carriage of goods, excise duty, fraud, guarantee, suspension of customs duties








C_2021088EN.01001602.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 31 December 2020 — TanQuid Polska Sp. z o. o. v Generální ředitelství cel
(Case C-711/20)
(2021/C 88/21)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TanQuid Polska Sp. z o. o.

Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

Questions referred







1.


Are products that are subject to excise duty transported pursuant to a suspension arrangement within the meaning of Article 4(c) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC (1) in a situation where a customs office of one Member State agreed to the movement of products under a duty-suspension arrangement from a tax warehouse to a registered trader established in another Member State, even though the conditions for the movement of those products under the duty-suspension arrangement were objectively not met, it having been established at a subsequent stage of the procedure that the registered trader had no knowledge of the movement of the products, due to fraud by third parties?










2.


Does the provision of an excise duty guarantee, as provided for by Article 15(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC, issued for a purpose other than the movement of products under a duty-suspension arrangement between a tax warehouse and a registered trader established in another Member State preclude the due commencement of movement under a duty-suspension arrangement, if the provision of the guarantee was recorded in the accompanying documents for the movement of the products under the duty-suspension arrangement for the registered trader and confirmed by the customs authority of the Member State?






(1)  Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1).
Notice to the reader
Date: 2020-12-31
Institutions: Publications Office of the European Union
Subjects: EU publication, United Kingdom, official document, withdrawal from the EU








L_2020444EN.01000101.xml










31.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 444/1







Notice to the reader

Due to the very late completion of the negotiations between the European Union and the United Kingdom, on 24 December 2020, and, as a consequence, the very late availability of all the language versions of the Agreements, on 27 December 2020, it has not been materially possible to proceed to the final legal-linguistic revision in all 24 language versions of the texts of the Agreements before their signature by the Parties and their publication in the Official Journal. Given the urgency of the situation, with the transition period provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement of 1 February 2020 ending on 31 December 2020, it has been however considered in the interest of both the European Union and the United Kingdom to sign and publish the texts of the Agreements as they resulted from the negotiations, without prior legal-linguistic revision. As a result, the texts published here may contain technical errors and inaccuracies that will be corrected in the coming months.
As provided for in Article FINPROV.9 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, Article 21 of the Agreement concerning Security Procedures for Exchanging and Protecting Classified Information and Article 25 of the Agreement for Cooperation on the Safe and Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, the versions of those Agreements in the Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish languages will be subject to final legal-linguistic revision and the authentic and definitive texts resulting from such legal-linguistic revision will replace ab initio the signed versions of the Agreements.
These authentic and definitive texts of the Agreements will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union in due time by 30 April 2021.
Case T-731/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 31 December 2020 — ExxonMobil Production Deutschland v Commission (Interim measures — Directive 2003/87/EC — Decision 2011/278/EU — System for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading — Application for interim measures — No urgency)
Date: 2020-12-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, industrial pollution








C_2021062EN.01003601.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/36






Order of the President of the General Court of 31 December 2020 — ExxonMobil Production Deutschland v Commission
(Case T-731/20 R)
(Interim measures - Directive 2003/87/EC - Decision 2011/278/EU - System for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading - Application for interim measures - No urgency)
(2021/C 62/46)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ExxonMobil Production Deutschland GmbH (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and J. Hoss, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. De Meester and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 279 TFEU and Article 156 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, seeking that the Commission be ordered to transfer 7 428 258 emission allowances to the account of the installation of the applicant by 31 December 2020 at the latest.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Notice to the reader
Date: 2020-12-31
Institutions: Publications Office of the European Union
Subjects: EU publication, United Kingdom, official document, withdrawal from the EU








L_2020445EN.01000101.xml










31.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 445/1






Notice to the reader
Due to the very late completion of the negotiations between the European Union and the United Kingdom, on 24 December 2020, and, as a consequence, the very late availability of all the language versions of the Agreements, on 27 December 2020, it has not been materially possible to proceed to the final legal-linguistic revision in all 24 language versions of the texts of the Agreements before their signature by the Parties and their publication in the Official Journal. Given the urgency of the situation, with the transition period provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement of 1 February 2020 ending on 31 December 2020, it has been however considered in the interest of both the European Union and the United Kingdom to sign and publish the texts of the Agreements as they resulted from the negotiations, without prior legal-linguistic revision. As a result, the texts published here may contain technical errors and inaccuracies that will be corrected in the coming months.
As provided for in Article FINPROV.9 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, Article 21 of the Agreement concerning Security Procedures for Exchanging and Protecting Classified Information and Article 25 of the Agreement for Cooperation on the Safe and Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, the versions of those Agreements in the Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish languages will be subject to final legal-linguistic revision and the authentic and definitive texts resulting from such legal-linguistic revision will replace ab initio the signed versions of the Agreements.
These authentic and definitive texts of the Agreements will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union in due time by 30 April 2021.
Case C-722/20 P: Appeal brought on 31 December 2020 by Ultrasun AG against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2020 in Case T-805/19, Ultrasun AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2020-12-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021182EN.01002701.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/27






Appeal brought on 31 December 2020 by Ultrasun AG against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2020 in Case T-805/19, Ultrasun AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-722/20 P)
(2021/C 182/38)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Ultrasun AG (represented by: A. Mühlendahl, H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 25 March 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.