do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-251/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 21 April 2021 — SIA Piltenes meži v Lauku atbalsta dienests
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, State aid, aid to undertakings, bird, company in difficulties, control of State aid, nature reserve, protection of animals, rural development, wooded area








C_2021252EN.01001401.xml










28.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 21 April 2021 — SIA Piltenes meži v Lauku atbalsta dienests
(Case C-251/21)
(2021/C 252/19)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant at first instance and appellant in cassation: SIA Piltenes meži

Other party: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Questions referred







1.


Do payments for micro-reserves created in a forest area in pursuance of the objectives of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (1) fall within the scope of Article 30(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005? (2)











2.


Is the award of compensation for micro-reserves created in pursuance of the objectives of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds subject to the restrictions which Commission Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 of 25 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (3) lays down in respect of payments for undertakings in difficulty?






(1)  OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 487.

(3)  OJ 2014 L 193, p. 1.
Case T-525/19: Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Intering and Others v Commission (Public contracts — Tendering procedure — Reduction of dust and nitrogen oxide emissions at the Kosovo B thermal power plant, Units B1 and B2 — Rejection of the application — Application for annulment submitted in the reply — New claims — Manifest inadmissibility — Amendment of the selection criteria during the procedure — Equal treatment)
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Kosovo, admissibility, air quality, atmospheric pollutant, award of contract, equal treatment, pollution control measures, power plant, public procurement, tendering








C_2021242EN.01002602.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/26






Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Intering and Others v Commission
(Case T-525/19) (1)

(Public contracts - Tendering procedure - Reduction of dust and nitrogen oxide emissions at the Kosovo B thermal power plant, Units B1 and B2 - Rejection of the application - Application for annulment submitted in the reply - New claims - Manifest inadmissibility - Amendment of the selection criteria during the procedure - Equal treatment)
(2021/C 242/34)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Intering Sh.p.k (Obiliq, Kosovo), Steinmüller Engineering GmbH (Gummersbach, Germany), Deling d.o.o. za proizvodnju, promet i usluge (Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina), ZM-Vikom d.o.o. za proizvodnju, konstrukcije i montažu (Šibenik, Croatia) (represented by: R. Spielhofen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà, B. Bertelmann and M. Kellerbauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of (i) Commission Decision Ares(2019) 4979920 of 30 July 2019 not to accept the application of the applicants to participate in the restricted procedure for the award of the contract relating to the call for tenders EuropeAid/140043/DH/WKS/XK and (ii) of the decision of 18 October 2019 concerning the award of that contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 30 July 2019 (Ares(2019)4979920) not to accept the applications of Intering Sh.p.k, Steinmüller Engineering GmbH, Deling d.o.o. za proizvodnju, promet i usluge and ZM-Vikom d.o.o. za proizvodnju, konstrukcije i montažu to participate in the restricted procedure for the award of the contract relating to the call for tenders EuropeAid/140043/DH/WKS/XK;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Case T-44/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Chanel v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (Representation of a circle containing two interlaced curves) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark representing a circle containing two interlaced curves — Earlier national figurative mark representing two interrupted circles interlaced horizontally — Earlier national figurative mark representing a circle containing two interrupted circles interlaced horizontally — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, electronic device, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2021242EN.01003401.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/34






Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Chanel v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (Representation of a circle containing two interlaced curves)
(Case T-44/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark representing a circle containing two interlaced curves - Earlier national figurative mark representing two interrupted circles interlaced horizontally - Earlier national figurative mark representing a circle containing two interrupted circles interlaced horizontally - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2021/C 242/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Chanel (Neuilly sur-Seine, France) (represented by: J. Passa, lawyer)

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: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2019 (Case R 1041/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Chanel and Huawei Technologies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Chanel to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.
Case C-249/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bottrop (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Fuhrmann-2-GmbH v B.
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, contract, electronic commerce








C_2021297EN.01002102.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bottrop (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Fuhrmann-2-GmbH v B.
(Case C-249/21)
(2021/C 297/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Bottrop

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fuhrmann-2-GmbH

Defendant: B.

Question referred

Is the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Directive 2011/83/EU (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the question whether a button or a similar function — the activation of which forms part of the ordering process of a distance contract to be concluded by electronic means within the meaning of the first subparagraph of that provision and which is not labelled with the words ‘order with obligation to pay’ — is labelled with a corresponding unambiguous formulation within the meaning of that provision, indicating that placing the order entails an obligation to pay the trader, is to be answered solely by reference to the labelling of the button or of the similar function?


(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).
Case T-326/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Bibita Group v EUIPO — Benkomers (Beverage bottles) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a beverage bottle — Prior international design — Ground for invalidity — Conflict with a prior design — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(d)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, packaging product








C_2021242EN.01004001.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/40






Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Bibita Group v EUIPO — Benkomers (Beverage bottles)
(Case T-326/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a beverage bottle - Prior international design - Ground for invalidity - Conflict with a prior design - Individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(d)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
(2021/C 242/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bibita Group (Tirana, Albania) (represented by: C. Seyfert, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaitė-Orlovskienė and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Benkomers OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2020 (Case R 1070/2018 3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Bibita Group and Benkomers.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bibita Group to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Case C-261/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 April 2021 — F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Others v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, cartel, drugs classification, jurisdiction, market approval, medicinal product








C_2021263EN.01000902.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 April 2021 — F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Others v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
(Case C-261/21)
(2021/C 263/13)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Novartis AG, Novartis Farma SpA, Roche SpA

Respondent: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Questions referred







1.


In a case where a party’s application seeks directly to assert an infringement of the principles expressed by the Court of Justice in that case in order to secure the setting-aside of the judgment under appeal, can the national court, against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, determine whether the principles expressed by the Court of Justice in the same case have been applied correctly in that specific case, or is that determination a matter for the Court of Justice?










2.


Has judgment No 4990/2019 of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) infringed, in the sense asserted by the parties, the principles expressed by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 23 January 2018 [in Case C-179/16] in relation (a) to the inclusion in the same relevant market of the two medicinal products without taking account of the views of authorities which had held that the off-label demand and supply of Avastin was unlawful; and (b) to the failure to verify the allegedly misleading nature of the information disseminated by the undertakings?










3.


Do Articles 4(3) and 19(1) TEU and Articles 2(1) and (2) and 267 TFEU, read also in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a system such as that concerning Article 106 of the codice del processo amministrativo (Code of Administrative Procedure, Italy) and Articles 395 and 396 of the codice di procedura civile (Code of Civil Procedure, Italy), inasmuch as that system does not permit the use of the remedy of an application for revision to challenge judgments of the Council of State that conflict with judgments of the Court of Justice, and in particular with the legal principles asserted by the Court of Justice in a preliminary ruling on questions referred to it?
Case C-250/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v O. Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty represented by O. SA
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, credit, tax exemption








C_2021289EN.01002601.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/26






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v O. Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty represented by O. SA
(Case C-250/21)
(2021/C 289/36)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Respondent: O. Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty represented by O. SA

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that the exemption which that provision provides for in respect of transactions concerning the granting and the negotiation of credit and the management of credit is applicable to the subparticipation agreement described in the main proceedings?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case T-282/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Apologistics v EUIPO — Kerckhoff (APO) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark APO — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wholesale selling








C_2021242EN.01003601.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/36






Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Apologistics v EUIPO — Kerckhoff (APO)
(Case T-282/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark APO - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2021/C 242/48)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Apologistics GmbH (Markkleeberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hug and S. Schreiber, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Markus Kerckhoff (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2020 (Case R 982/2019-5), concerning invalidity proceedings between M. Kerckhoff and Apologistics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Apologistics GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.
Case T-663/19: Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Hasbro v EUIPO — Kreativni Događaji (MONOPOLY) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark MONOPOLY — 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: 2021-04-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, gaming, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2021242EN.01003101.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/31






Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Hasbro v EUIPO — Kreativni Događaji (MONOPOLY)
(Case T-663/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark MONOPOLY - 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 242/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hasbro, Inc. (Pawtucket, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: J. Moss, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Kreativni Događaji d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2019 (Case R 1849/2017-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Kreativni Događaji and Hasbro.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hasbro, Inc., to pay the costs, including those incurred by Kreativni Događaji d.o.o. for the purposes of the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10157 — Aurubis/TSR Recycling/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 311/02
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: copper, economic concentration, electronic waste, iron and steel industry, merger control, metal waste, metallurgical industry, raw material, waste disposal, waste recycling








C_2021311EN.01000201.xml










3.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10157 — Aurubis/TSR Recycling/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 311/02)
On 21 April 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 32021M10157. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-555/19: Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark GRILLOUMI — Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Detriment to reputation — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021242EN.01002802.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/28






Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)
(Case T-555/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark GRILLOUMI - Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Detriment to reputation - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 242/37)
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, S. Baran, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden) (represented by: P. Nihlmark and L. Zacharoff, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 May 2019 (Case R 1355/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Fontana Food.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 May 2019 (Case R 1355/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Fontana Food AB;










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi;










3.


Orders Fontana Food to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.