do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-329/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — 12seasons v EUIPO — Société immobilière et mobilière de Montagny (BE EDGY BERLIN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BE EDGY BERLIN — Earlier national word mark EDJI — 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: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021072EN.01002102.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/21






Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — 12seasons v EUIPO — Société immobilière et mobilière de Montagny (BE EDGY BERLIN)
(Case T-329/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BE EDGY BERLIN - Earlier national word mark EDJI - 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 72/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: 12seasons GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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: Société immobilière et mobilière de Montagny (Roanne, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2019 (Case R 1522/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Société immobilière et mobilière de Montagny and 12seasons.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders 12seasons GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Case T-608/20: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — JD v EIB
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: indemnification, medical data, medical examination, medical report, pension scheme, remuneration of work, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), temporary employment, work contract








C_2021079EN.01003803.xml










8.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/38






Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — JD v EIB
(Case T-608/20) (1)

(2021/C 79/50)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Case C-420/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Maksu- ja Tolliamet v Heavyinstall OÜ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2010/24/EU — Article 16 — Recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures — Mutual assistance — Request for precautionary measures — Judicial decision of the applicant Member State for the purpose of implementing precautionary measures — Jurisdiction of the court of the requested Member State to assess and reassess the justification of those measures — Principles of mutual trust and of mutual recognition)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European tax cooperation, administrative cooperation, claim, debt, jurisdiction, mutual assistance, seizure of goods, tax collection








C_2021079EN.01000901.xml










8.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/9






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Maksu- ja Tolliamet v Heavyinstall OÜ
(Case C-420/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2010/24/EU - Article 16 - Recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures - Mutual assistance - Request for precautionary measures - Judicial decision of the applicant Member State for the purpose of implementing precautionary measures - Jurisdiction of the court of the requested Member State to assess and reassess the justification of those measures - Principles of mutual trust and of mutual recognition)
(2021/C 79/10)
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Maksu- ja Tolliamet

Defendant: Heavyinstall OÜ

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16 of Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the requested Member State, ruling on a request for precautionary measures, are bound by the assessment of the factual and legal compliance with the conditions laid down for the application of those measures made by the authorities of the applicant Member State, in particular where that assessment is contained in the document referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 16(1) of that directive, attached to that request.


(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Case C-301/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 January 2021 — European Commission v Printeos SA (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Decision finding infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Fines — Annulment — Repayment of the principal amount of the fine — Article 266 TFEU — Default interest — Distinction between default interest and compensatory interest — Calculation of interest — Article 90(4)(a), second sentence, of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, control of restrictive practices, interest, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2021079EN.01000502.xml










8.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/5






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 January 2021 — European Commission v Printeos SA
(Case C-301/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Decision finding infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Fines - Annulment - Repayment of the principal amount of the fine - Article 266 TFEU - Default interest - Distinction between default interest and compensatory interest - Calculation of interest - Article 90(4)(a), second sentence, of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012)
(2021/C 79/06)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac, P. Rossi and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Printeos SA (represented by: H. Brokelmann and P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, abogados)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Sets aside point 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 February 2019, Printeos v Commission (T-201/17, EU:T:2019:81);










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay Printeos SA interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations, plus 3,5 percentage points, on the amount of EUR 184 592,95 for the period from 31 March 2017 until the date of payment in full;










4.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay those of Printeos SA relating both to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-201/17 and the proceedings before the Court of Justice.






(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.
Special Report 1/2021 ‘Resolution planning in the Single Resolution Mechanism’ 2021/C 21/05
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU banking union, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, bank, company in difficulties, economic stabilisation, euro area, financial aid, financial control, financial solvency








C_2021021EN.01000501.xml










20.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 21/5






Special Report 1/2021
‘Resolution planning in the Single Resolution Mechanism’
(2021/C 21/05)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report 1/2021 ‘Resolution planning in the Single Resolution Mechanism’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Case T-580/20: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — KC v Commission (Action for damages — State aid — Complaint — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, State aid, control of State aid, damages, investment company, sanction (EU)








C_2021088EN.01003202.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/32






Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — KC v Commission
(Case T-580/20) (1)

(Action for damages - State aid - Complaint - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2021/C 88/43)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: KC (represented by: L. Frölich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant owing to the Commission’s failure to initiate, in a timely manner, the formal investigation procedure following the applicant’s State aid complaint (SA.46963).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders KC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.
Case T-166/20: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — JD v EIB
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: data protection, discrimination based on disability, life assurance, medical examination, servant (EU), social security legislation, social-security benefit, staff regulations (EU), work contract








C_2021088EN.01004603.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/46






Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — JD v EIB
(Case T-166/20) (1)

(2021/C 88/63)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Case T-829/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 VODKA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA — Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Relevant public — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, alcoholic beverage, business administration, business management, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021088EN.01002802.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/28






Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 VODKA)
(Case T-829/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA - Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Relevant public - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Global assessment of the 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 88/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Chleboun, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Bacardi & Co. Ltd (Meyrin, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Parassina, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 (Case R 2531/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bacardi & Co. and Palírna U Zeléného stromu.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Case T-276/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Crevier v EUIPO (air freshener) (Community design — Application for a Community design representing an air freshener — Non-compliance with a time limit vis-à-vis EUIPO — Application for restitutio in integrum — Article 67(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Duty of care)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, electrical equipment, household electrical appliance








C_2021072EN.01002502.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/25






Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Crevier v EUIPO (air freshener)
(Case T-276/20) (1)

(Community design - Application for a Community design representing an air freshener - Non-compliance with a time limit vis-à-vis EUIPO - Application for restitutio in integrum - Article 67(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Duty of care)
(2021/C 72/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Jeffrey Scott Crevier (Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States) (represented by: M. Kime, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Cottrell, A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2020 (Case R 2396/2019-3) relating to an application for restitutio in integrum.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Jeffrey Scott Crevier to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Case T-27/21: Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications equipment, trade-mark law








C_2021088EN.01003601.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/36






Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)
(Case T-27/21)
(2021/C 88/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: I. Junkar, I. Fowler, M. Petersenn and B. Lüthge, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swatch AG (Biel, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark THINK DIFFERENT — European Union trade mark No 845 461

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2020 in Case R 2012/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-830/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 VODKA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA — Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Relevant public — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, alcoholic beverage, business administration, business management, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021088EN.01002901.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/29






Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 VODKA)
(Case T-830/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA - Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Relevant public - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Global assessment of the 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 88/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Chleboun, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Bacardi & Co. Ltd (Meyrin, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Parassina, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 (Case R 2532/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bacardi & Co. and Palírna U Zeléného stromu.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Case C-288/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Saarlandes — Germany) — QM v Finanzamt Saarbrücken (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(c) — Supplies of services for consideration — Article 26(1) — Transactions treated as supplies of services for consideration — Article 56(2) — Determination of the point of reference for tax purposes — Hiring of means of transport — Making cars available to employees)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, hiring, provision of services, taxpayer, vehicle, vehicle rental








C_2021079EN.01000501.xml










8.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/5






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Saarlandes — Germany) — QM v Finanzamt Saarbrücken
(Case C-288/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Supplies of services for consideration - Article 26(1) - Transactions treated as supplies of services for consideration - Article 56(2) - Determination of the point of reference for tax purposes - Hiring of means of transport - Making cars available to employees)
(2021/C 79/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht des Saarlandes

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: QM

Defendant: Finanzamt Saarbrücken

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of the first subparagraph of Article 56(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, the act of making a vehicle forming part of the assets of the business of a taxable person available to one of that taxable person’s employees does not fall within the scope of that provision if that transaction does not constitute a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c) of that directive. By contrast, the first subparagraph of Article 56(2) of Directive 2006/112 does apply to such a transaction if it involves a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c) of that directive and if that employee has a permanent right to use that vehicle for private purposes and to exclude other persons from using it, in exchange for rent and for an agreed period of more than 30 days.


(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 19 January 2021 2021/C 21/03
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021021EN.01000301.xml










20.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 21/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

19 January 2021
(2021/C 21/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2132 




JPY


Japanese yen


126,16 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4393 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89100 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,0953 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0769 




ISK


Iceland króna


157,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,3423 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,161 




HUF


Hungarian forint


358,52 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5352 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8744 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,0257 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5723 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5438 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,4052 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7020 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6114 




KRW


South Korean won


1 337,54 




ZAR


South African rand


18,1181 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8610 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5655 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 080,95 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9135 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,251 




RUB


Russian rouble


89,4400 




THB


Thai baht


36,426 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3848 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,7870 




INR


Indian rupee


88,7525 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-26/21: Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications equipment, trade-mark law








C_2021088EN.01003501.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/35






Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)
(Case T-26/21)
(2021/C 88/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: I. Junkar, I. Fowler, M. Petersenn and B. Lüthge, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swatch AG (Biel, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark THINK DIFFERENT — European Union trade mark No 671 321

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2020 in Case R 2011/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.