do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-186/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2021 — Chatwal v EUIPO — Timehouse Capital (THE TIME) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark THE TIME — Earlier EU word mark TIMEHOUSE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, hotel industry, property leasing, real estate business, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021206EN.01002301.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/23






Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2021 — Chatwal v EUIPO — Timehouse Capital (THE TIME)
(Case T-186/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark THE TIME - Earlier EU word mark TIMEHOUSE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 206/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Chatwal Hotels & Resorts LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: N. Hine, solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: 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: Timehouse Capital GmbH (Grasbrunn, Germany) (represented by: T. Farkas, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 January 2020 (Case R 2264/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Timehouse Capital and Chatwal Hotels & Resorts.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Chatwal Hotels & Resorts LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10167 — Continental/Light control units business of OSRAM Continental) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 90/04
Date: 2021-03-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2021090EN.01000401.xml










17.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10167 — Continental/Light control units business of OSRAM Continental)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 90/04)

1.   

On 10 March 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).


This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Continental AG (‘Continental’, Germany),










—


The light control units business of OSRAM Continental GmbH (‘OSRAM Continental’, Germany), controlled by OSRAM GmbH (‘OSRAM’, Germany).




Continental acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the light control units business of OSRAM Continental. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and assets.

2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Continental: the manufacture and supply of various components and spare parts, notably for the automotive industry,










—


for the light control units business of OSRAM Continental: the manufacture and supply of light control units used to control automotive lighting systems.






3.   

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.


Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.   

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.


Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10167 — Continental/Light control units business of OSRAM Continental
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-175/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 17 March 2021 — Harman International Industries v AB SA
Date: 2021-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, civil liability proceedings, enforcement of ruling, import restriction, market approval, registered trade mark, sale, trade-mark law, withdrawal from the market








C_2021242EN.01000701.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 17 March 2021 — Harman International Industries v AB SA
(Case C-175/21)
(2021/C 242/09)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Harman International Industries

Defendant: AB SA

Question referred

Must the second sentence of Article 36 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, (1) and in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, be interpreted as precluding the practice of the national courts of the Member States, which is that the courts:






—


when upholding claims by right holders to prohibit the importation, putting on the market, offering, advertising of goods bearing the EU trade mark, to order their withdrawal from the market or to order their destruction;










—


when ruling, in proceedings to secure claims, on the seizure of goods bearing the EU trade mark,
refer in their rulings to ‘goods which have not been put on the market within the European Economic Area by the right holder or with his consent’, with the result that it is left to the enforcement authority, in view of the general wording of the ruling, to determine which items bearing the EU trade mark are subject to the injunctions and prohibitions granted (that is to say, which items have not been put on the market within the European Economic Area by the right holder or with his consent), while the possibility of challenging the aforementioned findings of the enforcement authority before a court in declaratory proceedings is excluded or limited by the nature of the legal remedies available to the defendant in proceedings to secure claims and in enforcement proceedings?






(1)  OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1.
Case T-585/19: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2021 — EJ v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Remuneration — Travel costs — Double dependent child allowance — Child with serious illness — Capping of the backdated reimbursement of those costs and of that double allowance — Reasonable period — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Action for annulment and for damages)
Date: 2021-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, child, dependant, family benefit, illness, indemnification








C_2021182EN.01005102.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/51






Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2021 — EJ v EIB
(Case T-585/19) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Remuneration - Travel costs - Double dependent child allowance - Child with serious illness - Capping of the backdated reimbursement of those costs and of that double allowance - Reasonable period - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Action for annulment and for damages)
(2021/C 182/69)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: EJ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: J. Klein, M. Loizou and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and by J. Currall and B. Wägenbaur, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and on Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 16 February 2018 capping the backdated reimbursement of the recurring travel costs incurred by the applicant owing to her child’s serious illness at 18 months and of the decision of 23 March 2018 capping the backdated award of the double dependent child allowance at five years and, secondly, compensation for the material and pecuniary harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
Case T-226/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2021 — Steinel v EUIPO (MobileHeat) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark MobileHeat — Relative ground for refusal — Descriptive nature — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, boiler, hand tool, heating, machine tool, metalworking, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021206EN.01002401.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/24






Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2021 — Steinel v EUIPO (MobileHeat)
(Case T-226/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark MobileHeat - Relative ground for refusal - Descriptive nature - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 206/30)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Steinel GmbH (Herzebrock-Clarholz, Germany) (represented by: M. Breuer and K. Freudenstein, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2020 (Case R 2472/2019-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MobileHeat as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Steinel GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Case T-719/17: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2021 — FMC v Commission (Plant-protection products — Active substance flupyrsulfuron-methyl — Non-renewal of inclusion in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 — Assessment procedure — Proposed classification of an active substance — Precautionary principle — Rights of defence — Legal certainty — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality — Principle of non-discrimination — Principle of sound administration — Legitimate expectations)
Date: 2021-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, herbicide, market approval, plant health control, precautionary principle, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, withdrawal from the market








C_2021182EN.01005101.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/51






Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2021 — FMC v Commission
(Case T-719/17) (1)

(Plant-protection products - Active substance flupyrsulfuron-methyl - Non-renewal of inclusion in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 - Assessment procedure - Proposed classification of an active substance - Precautionary principle - Rights of defence - Legal certainty - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Principle of non-discrimination - Principle of sound administration - Legitimate expectations)
(2021/C 182/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: FMC Corporation (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, I. Antypas and A. Accarain, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis, G. Koleva and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1496 of 23 August 2017 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance DPX KE 459 (flupyrsulfuron methyl), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2017 L 218, p. 7).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders FMC Corporation to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the substitution procedure and the proceedings for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Case C-900/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association One Voice, Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux v Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Articles 5 and 8 — Prohibition of the use of any method of capture of birds — Article 9(1) — Authorisation to use, by way of derogation, a traditional method of capture of birds — Conditions — No other satisfactory solution — Preservation of that traditional method as the sole justification for the absence of an ‘other satisfactory solution’ — Selectivity of catches — National legislation authorising the capture of birds using limes)
Date: 2021-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bird, hunting, hunting regulations, protection of animals








C_2021182EN.01001701.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/17






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association One Voice, Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux v Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire
(Case C-900/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2009/147/EC - Conservation of wild birds - Articles 5 and 8 - Prohibition of the use of any method of capture of birds - Article 9(1) - Authorisation to use, by way of derogation, a traditional method of capture of birds - Conditions - No other satisfactory solution - Preservation of that traditional method as the sole justification for the absence of an ‘other satisfactory solution’ - Selectivity of catches - National legislation authorising the capture of birds using limes)
(2021/C 182/23)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Association One Voice, Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux

Defendant: Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire

Interested party: Fédération nationale des Chasseurs

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a method of capture of birds is traditional is not, in itself, sufficient to establish that another satisfactory solution, within the meaning of that provision, cannot be substituted for that method;










2.


Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 2009/147 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which authorises, by way of derogation from Article 8 of that directive, a method of capture leading to by-catch where that by-catch, even in small quantities and for a limited period, is likely to cause harm other than negligible harm to the non-target species captured.






(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Case C-585/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — Academia de Studii Economice din Bucureşti v Organismul Intermediar pentru Programul Operaţional Capital Uman — Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 2 — Definition of ‘working time’ — Article 3 — Minimum period of daily rest — Workers having concluded several employment contracts with the same employer — Application by worker)
Date: 2021-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, legal working time, occupational safety, rest period, work contract








C_2021182EN.01001102.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/11






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — Academia de Studii Economice din Bucureşti v Organismul Intermediar pentru Programul Operaţional Capital Uman — Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale
(Case C-585/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 2 - Definition of ‘working time’ - Article 3 - Minimum period of daily rest - Workers having concluded several employment contracts with the same employer - Application by worker)
(2021/C 182/15)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Academia de Studii Economice din Bucureşti

Defendant: Organismul Intermediar pentru Programul Operaţional Capital Uman — Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1) and 3 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that, where an employee has concluded several contracts of employment with the same employer, the minimum daily rest period provided for in Article 3 thereof applies to those contracts taken as a whole and not to each of those contracts taken separately.


(1)  OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.
Case C-459/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Wellcome Trust Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 43 and 44 — Place of supply of services to a taxable person acting as such — Place of supply of investment management services received by a charitable organisation for a non-economic business activity from suppliers established outside the European Union)
Date: 2021-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, investment company, provision of services, purchase, sale, share, taxpayer








C_2021182EN.01000701.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/7






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Wellcome Trust Ltd
(Case C-459/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 43 and 44 - Place of supply of services to a taxable person acting as such - Place of supply of investment management services received by a charitable organisation for a non-economic business activity from suppliers established outside the European Union)
(2021/C 182/09)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondent: Wellcome Trust Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Article 44 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, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a taxable person carrying on a non-economic activity in a business capacity acquires services for the purposes of that non-economic activity, those services must be regarded as being supplied to that taxable person ‘acting as such’, within the meaning of that article.


(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
Case C-225/21 P: Appeal brought on 17 March 2021 by Luis Gonzalo Segura del Oro Pulido against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 February 2021 in Case T-701/20, Segura del Oro Pulido v Commission
Date: 2021-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, legal expenses, operation of the Institutions








C_2021502EN.01001201.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/12






Appeal brought on 17 March 2021 by Luis Gonzalo Segura del Oro Pulido against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 February 2021 in Case T-701/20, Segura del Oro Pulido v Commission
(Case C-225/21 P)
(2021/C 502/18)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Luis Gonzalo Segura del Oro Pulido (represented by: J. Jover Padró, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 29 September 2021, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being manifestly inadmissible and orders Luis Gonzalo Segura del Oro Pulido to bear his own costs.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10099 — Arch/Kelso/Warburg/Watford) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 99/01
Date: 2021-03-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance, investment company, merger control








C_2021099EN.01000101.xml










23.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 99/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10099 — Arch/Kelso/Warburg/Watford)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 99/01)
On 17 March 2021, 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 32021M10099. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.