do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-842/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Repower v EUIPO — repowermap.org (REPOWER) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark REPOWER — Absolute ground for invalidity — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical energy, energy production, registered trade mark, renewable energy, trade-mark law








C_2021242EN.01001601.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/16






Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Repower v EUIPO — repowermap.org (REPOWER)
(Case T-842/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark REPOWER - Absolute ground for invalidity - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2021/C 242/20)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

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: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón and W. Sakulin, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between repowermap.org and Repower.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 September 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5) in so far as the application for a declaration of invalidity has been upheld in respect of voice tubes in Class 9;










2.


Dismisses the action for the remainder;










3.


Orders Repower AG to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by EUIPO and repowermap.org.






(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
Case T-284/20: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Klaus Berthold v EUIPO — Thomann (HB Harley Benton) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark HB Harley Benton — Earlier EU word mark HB — Earlier national trade name — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021242EN.01003602.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/36






Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Klaus Berthold v EUIPO — Thomann (HB Harley Benton)
(Case T-284/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark HB Harley Benton - Earlier EU word mark HB - Earlier national trade name - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 242/49)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Klaus Berthold Besitzgesellschaft GmbH & Co. KG (Thalhausen, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Thomann GmbH (Burgebrach, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 March 2020 (Case R 1359/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Thomann GmbH and Klaus Berthold Besitzgesellschaft GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Klaus Berthold Besitzgesellschaft GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Case T-31/20: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — West End Drinks v EUIPO — Pernod Ricard (The King of SOHO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark The King of SOHO — Earlier EU word mark SOHO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021242EN.01003301.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/33






Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — West End Drinks v EUIPO — Pernod Ricard (The King of SOHO)
(Case T-31/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark The King of SOHO - Earlier EU word mark SOHO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 242/44)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: West End Drinks Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Hawkes, Solicitor, C. Hall, Barrister, and B. Niemann Fadani, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pernod Ricard (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 October 2019 (Case R 1543/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Pernod Ricard and West End Drinks.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Dismisses the cross-claim as inadmissible;










3.


With regard to the main action, orders West End Drinks Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred, in the context of the present proceedings, by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Pernod Ricard;










4.


With regard to the cross-claim, orders Pernod Ricard to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by EUIPO, and orders West End Drinks to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Case T-514/16: Order of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Tsilikas v Commission
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, disability insurance, indemnification, interest








C_2021252EN.01003504.xml










28.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/35






Order of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Tsilikas v Commission
(Case T-514/16) (1)

(2021/C 252/50)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014 (case originally registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-74/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-310/20: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Comercializadora Eloro v EUIPO — Zumex Group (JUMEX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark JUMEX — Earlier EU figurative mark zumex — 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: 2021-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021242EN.01003801.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/38






Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Comercializadora Eloro v EUIPO — Zumex Group (JUMEX)
(Case T-310/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark JUMEX - Earlier EU figurative mark zumex - 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 242/52)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Comercializadora Eloro, SA (Ecatepec, Mexico) (represented by: J. L. Gracia Albero, P. Merino Baylos and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zumex Group, SA (Moncada, Spain) (represented by: M. C. March Cabrelles, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 (Case R 534/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Zumex Group and Comercializadora Eloro.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Comercializadora Eloro, SA to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Zumex Group, SA.






(1)  OJ C 240, 20.7.2020.
Case T-872/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — repowermap.org v EUIPO — Repower (REPOWER) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark REPOWER — Absolute ground for invalidity — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Freedom of expression)
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, electrical energy, energy distribution, energy production, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, transmission network








C_2021242EN.01001602.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/16






Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — repowermap.org v EUIPO — Repower (REPOWER)
(Case T-872/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark REPOWER - Absolute ground for invalidity - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Freedom of expression)
(2021/C 242/21)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón and W. Sakulin, lawyers)

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: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between repowermap.org and Repower.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Alters the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 September 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5) in such a way as to cancel the contested mark with respect to the following services:






—


Class 37: ‘Services of heating engineers’;










—


Class 42: ‘Scientific services and research and development relating thereto; industrial research and analyses.’














2.


Dismisses the action for the remainder;










3.


Orders repowermap.org to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by EUIPO and Repower AG.






(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
Case T-615/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Point Tec Products Electronic v EUIPO — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon (representation of two extended wings around a triangle) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing two extended wings around a triangle — Earlier EU figurative mark representing two extended wings around a rectangle — 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) — Article 72(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021242EN.01003001.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/30






Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Point Tec Products Electronic v EUIPO — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon (representation of two extended wings around a triangle)
(Case T-615/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing two extended wings around a triangle - Earlier EU figurative mark representing two extended wings around a rectangle - 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) - Article 72(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2021/C 242/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Point Tec Products Electronic GmbH (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: D. Wiedemann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon S.A. (Saint-Imier, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2019 (Case R 2427/2018 5), relating to opposition proceedings between Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon and Point Tec Products Electronic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Point Tec Products Electronic GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
Case T-843/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Correia v EESC (Civil service — EESC staff — Members of the temporary staff — Refusal to regrade — Action for annulment — Time limit for complaints — Burden of proving expiry of the time limit — Act adversely affecting an official — Admissibility — Equal treatment — Legal certainty — Action for damages — Non-material damage)
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: admissibility, assistant, equal treatment, indemnification, principle of legal certainty, promotion, servant (EU), staff assessment, temporary employment








C_2021242EN.01003202.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/32






Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Correia v EESC
(Case T-843/19) (1)

(Civil service - EESC staff - Members of the temporary staff - Refusal to regrade - Action for annulment - Time limit for complaints - Burden of proving expiry of the time limit - Act adversely affecting an official - Admissibility - Equal treatment - Legal certainty - Action for damages - Non-material damage)
(2021/C 242/43)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Paula Correia (Sint-Stevens-Woluwe, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, X. Chamodraka and K. Gambino, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the EESC adopted on a date unknown to the applicant, which the applicant became aware of on 12 April 2019, refusing to regrade her in grade AST 7 in the 2019 regrading process and, secondly, compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant on account of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) refusing to regrade Mrs Paula Correia in the 2019 regrading process;










2.


Orders the EESC to pay Mrs Correia the sum of EUR 2 000 in respect of the non-material damage she suffered;










3.


Orders the EESC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Case T-230/21: Action brought on 28 April 2021 — Jalkh v Parliament
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, access to EU information, civil proceedings, criminal procedure, parliamentary immunity, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2021242EN.01005101.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/51






Action brought on 28 April 2021 — Jalkh v Parliament
(Case T-230/21)
(2021/C 242/72)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jean-François Jalkh (Gretz-Armainvilliers, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul European Parliament Decision P9_TA(2021)0092 of 25 March 2021 on the request for waiver of the immunity of the applicant (2020/2110 IMM) and effectively waiving his immunity;










—


order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, plea of illegality against Article 32 of Communication No 0011/2019 of 19 November 2019. The applicant takes the view that that the fact that a Member cannot take a copy of the file allows it to be manipulated before it is communicated to the members of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Parliament (‘the JURI Committee’). According to him, that provision constitutes a manifest violation of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair trial, and infringement of the general principle of equality of arms and of fairness in proceedings.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements. The plea is divided into four parts.






—


First part, alleging the offence of forgery and usage of forged documents committed by the rapporteur of the JURI Committee and its Chair.










—


Second part, alleging violation of the ‘priority of criminal over administrative and civil actions’ rule.










—


Third part, alleging infringement by the Parliament of Article 7 of Communication No 0011/2019 of 19 November 2019.










—


Fourth part, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 266; ‘the Protocol’).










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Protocol. In this regard, the applicant claims a blatant case of fumus persecutionis.
Case T-311/20: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — France Agro v EUIPO — Chafay (Choumicha Saveurs) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Choumicha Saveurs — Absolute ground for refusal — Bad faith — Declaration of invalidity — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal feedingstuffs, aromatic plant, condiment, foodstuff, fresh fruit, fresh vegetable, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021242EN.01003901.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/39






Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — France Agro v EUIPO — Chafay (Choumicha Saveurs)
(Case T-311/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Choumicha Saveurs - Absolute ground for refusal - Bad faith - Declaration of invalidity - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 242/53)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: France Agro (Avignon, France) (represented by: C. de Haas, lawyer)

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: Choumicha Chafay (Casablanca, Morocco) (represented by: B. Lafont, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 (Case R 1621/2019-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ms Chafay and France Agro.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders France Agro to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 240, 20.7.2020.
Case C-273/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 28 April 2021 — WD v Agrárminiszter
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU direct payments, agricultural land, aid to agriculture, airport, eligibility criteria, land register, livestock farming, single payment scheme








C_2021252EN.01001702.xml










28.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 28 April 2021 — WD v Agrárminiszter
(Case C-273/21)
(2021/C 252/23)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapest Környéki Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: WD

Defendant: Agrárminiszter

Question referred

By its single question, the referring court seeks clarification as to whether Article 32(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 (1) must be interpreted as meaning that an area, classified in the land registry as ‘aerodrome withdrawn from agricultural use’, and where there is no activity associated with an aerodrome, must be considered as predominantly used for agricultural activities if animals are kept for farming purposes in that area.


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608).