do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-328/17 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BBQLOUMI — Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — No 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, catering industry, foodstuff, milk product, processed food product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021079EN.01002901.xml










8.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/29






Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)
(Case T-328/17 RENV) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BBQLOUMI - Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - No 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 79/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, V. Marsland, Solicitor, and S. Barran, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: M.J. Dairies EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: D. Dimitrova, avocate)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2017 (Case R 497/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and M. J. Dairies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi to pay the costs relating to the proceedings instituted before the General Court and to the proceedings on the appeal before the Court of Justice.






(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Case T-884/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Marc Folschette and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Investigation by OLAF — Information technology contract — Corruption — Trading in influence — Final report recommending the bringing of criminal proceedings — Final acquittal by a criminal court — Period of limitation — Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, corruption, criminal proceedings, fundamental rights, indemnification, information technology, limitation of legal proceedings








C_2021072EN.01002402.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/24






Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Marc Folschette and Others v Commission
(Case T-884/19) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Investigation by OLAF - Information technology contract - Corruption - Trading in influence - Final report recommending the bringing of criminal proceedings - Final acquittal by a criminal court - Period of limitation - Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)
(2021/C 72/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Marc Folschette (Leudelange, Luxembourg), Tetyana Grygorenko (Leudelange), Professional Business Solutions SA (Leudelange) (represented by: N. Bauer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Blanc, Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicants claim to have suffered as a result of the conduct of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in the context of an internal investigation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Marc Folschette, Tetyana Grygorenko and Professional Business Solutions SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
Case T-478/20: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Bigben Connected v EUIPO — Forsee Power (FORCE POWER)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electricity storage device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021088EN.01004604.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/46






Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Bigben Connected v EUIPO — Forsee Power (FORCE POWER)
(Case T-478/20) (1)

(2021/C 88/64)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.
Case T-261/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Optima Naturals (OptiMar) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark OptiMar — Earlier national word mark Mar — Relative ground for refusal — No 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, cosmetic product, medical device, pharmaceutical product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021072EN.01002101.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/21






Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Optima Naturals (OptiMar)
(Case T-261/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark OptiMar - Earlier national word mark Mar - Relative ground for refusal - No 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 72/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Optima Naturals Srl (Gallarate, Italy) (represented by: S. Brustia and E. Montelione, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2019 (Case R 1348/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Stada Arzneimittel and Optima Naturals.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Stada Arzneimittel AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Case T-656/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Jareš Procházková and Jareš v EUIPO — Elton Hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949 — Absence of a prior right acquired pursuant to national law — Article 52(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/04 (now Article 60(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021079EN.01002902.xml










8.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/29






Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Jareš Procházková and Jareš v EUIPO — Elton Hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949)
(Case T-656/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949 - Absence of a prior right acquired pursuant to national law - Article 52(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/04 (now Article 60(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 79/38)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicants: Hana Jareš Procházková (Prague, Czech Republic), Antonín Jareš (Prague) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Elton Hodinářská a.s. (Nové Město nad Metují, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Matoušek, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2018 (Case R 1159/2017-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Mrs Jareš Procházková and Mr Jareš and, on the other hand, Elton Hodinářská.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mrs Hana Jareš Procházková and Mr Antonín Jareš to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);










3.


Orders Elton Hodinářská a.s. to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.
Case T-844/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Apologistics v EUIPO — Peikert (discount-apotheke.de) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark discount-ap*theke.de — Earlier EU word marks APODISCOUNTER and APO and earlier figurative marks apo-discounter.de, apo.co and apo.de — Relative ground for refusal — No 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, cosmetic product, dietary product, food supplement, pharmaceutical product, pharmacology, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2021072EN.01002301.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/23






Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Apologistics v EUIPO — Peikert (discount-apotheke.de)
(Case T-844/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark discount-ap*theke.de - Earlier EU word marks APODISCOUNTER and APO and earlier figurative marks apo-discounter.de, apo.co and apo.de - Relative ground for refusal - No 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 72/34)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Apologistics GmbH (Markkleeberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hug (lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Franz Michael Peikert (Offenbach, Germany) (represented by: T. Bruggmann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2019 (Case R 2309/2018-5) in opposition proceedings between Apologistics and Mr Peikert.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Apologistics GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Case T-734/19: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Member of Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Request for an urgent initiative to confirm the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European election, Member of the European Parliament, admissibility, charge, detention before trial, offence, parliamentary immunity








C_2021088EN.01003101.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/31






Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament
(Case T-734/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Institutional law - Member of Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Request for an urgent initiative to confirm the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)
(2021/C 88/41)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (Sant Joan de Vilatorrada, Spain) (represented by: A. Van den Eynde Adroer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, N. Görlitz and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the letter of 22 August 2019 by which the President of the Parliament rejected the request to take an urgent initiative seeking to confirm the applicant’s immunity, made on 4 July 2019 on his behalf by Ms Riba i Giner, Member of the European Parliament, on the basis of Article 8 of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the Kingdom of Spain’s application to intervene;










3.


Orders Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament;










4.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its costs relating to its application to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.
Case C-619/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Land Baden-Württemberg v D.R. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Aarhus Convention — Directive 2003/4/EC — Public access to environmental information — ‘Stuttgart 21’ infrastructure project — Refusal of a request for environmental information — Article 4(1) — Grounds for refusal — Term ‘internal communications’ — Scope — Limitation in time of the protection of such communications)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Baden-Württemberg, EU environmental policy, Germany, access to EU information, confidentiality, environmental protection, protection of communications, right to information, transport infrastructure








C_2021079EN.01001301.xml










8.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/13






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Land Baden-Württemberg v D.R.
(Case C-619/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Aarhus Convention - Directive 2003/4/EC - Public access to environmental information - ‘Stuttgart 21’ infrastructure project - Refusal of a request for environmental information - Article 4(1) - Grounds for refusal - Term ‘internal communications’ - Scope - Limitation in time of the protection of such communications)
(2021/C 79/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Respondent: D.R.

Other parties: Deutsche Bahn AG, Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 4(1)(e) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘internal communications’ covers all information which circulates within a public authority and which, on the date of the request for access, has not left that authority’s internal sphere — as the case may be, after being received by that authority, provided that it was not or should not have been made available to the public before it was so received.










2.


Article 4(1)(e) of Directive 2003/4 must be interpreted as meaning that the applicability of the exception to the right of access to environmental information provided for by it in respect of internal communications of a public authority is not limited in time. However, that exception can apply only for the period during which protection of the information sought is justified.






(1)  OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.
Case T-25/21: Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Corman v Commission
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, pension scheme, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021072EN.01003501.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/35






Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Corman v Commission
(Case T-25/21)
(2021/C 72/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Marie Corman (Schaerbeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 4 June 2020 determining the applicant’s entitlement to a retirement pension;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.
Case T-811/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Enoport v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (CABEÇA DE TOIRO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark CABEÇA DE TOIRO — Earlier EU word mark SANGRE DE TORO — 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, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021072EN.01002201.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/22






Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Enoport v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (CABEÇA DE TOIRO)
(Case T-811/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark CABEÇA DE TOIRO - Earlier EU word mark SANGRE DE TORO - 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 72/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Enoport — Produção de Bebidas Lda (Rio Maior, Portugal) (represented by: J. Alves Coelho, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedès, Spain) (represented by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez and M. Robledo McClymont, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2019 (Case R 394/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres and Enoport — Produção de Bebidas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Enoport — Produção de Bebidas Lda to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 36, 3.2.2020.
Case T-29/21: Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Beveland v EUIPO — Super B (BUCANERO)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021079EN.01003601.xml










8.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/36






Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Beveland v EUIPO — Super B (BUCANERO)
(Case T-29/21)
(2021/C 79/46)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Beveland, SA (Sant Joan les Fonts, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Super B, SL (Talavera de la Reina, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Word mark BUCANERO — European Union trade mark No 390 641

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2020 in Case R 1046/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, expressly declaring the EU trademark BUCANERO (word mark) to be revoked for all the goods registered in Classes 32 and 33;










—


order EUIPO and the proprietor of the trade mark at issue, SUPER B, S.L., to pay all the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, including the costs relating to the revocation proceedings before EUIPO.





Plea in law

Infringement of Articles 18 and 58 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-831/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED 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.01003001.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/30






Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA)
(Case T-831/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED 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 88/39)
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 2533/2018-2), 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.