do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10020 — Korian/VYV/Technosens Evolution) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 197/01
Date: 2021-05-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: care for the elderly, economic concentration, holding company, insurance company, investment company, merger control, social facilities, subsidised housing








C_2021197EN.01000101.xml










26.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 197/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10020 — Korian/VYV/Technosens Evolution)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 197/01)
On 19 May 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 French 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 32021M10020. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-256/20: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2021 — Steinel v EUIPO (GluePro) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark GluePro — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, adhesive, chemical product, hand tool, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021263EN.01001901.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/19






Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2021 — Steinel v EUIPO (GluePro)
(Case T-256/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark GluePro - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2021/C 263/25)
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 14 February 2020 (Case R 2516/2019-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign GluePro 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 215, 29.6.2020.
Case T-324/20: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2021 — Yongkang Kugooo Technology v EUIPO — Ford Motor Company (kugoo) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark kugoo — Earlier EU and national word marks KUGA and earlier EU word mark KUGA ENERGI — 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: 2021-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electric vehicle, motor vehicle, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2021263EN.01002001.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/20






Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2021 — Yongkang Kugooo Technology v EUIPO — Ford Motor Company (kugoo)
(Case T-324/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark kugoo - Earlier EU and national word marks KUGA and earlier EU word mark KUGA ENERGI - 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 263/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Yongkang Kugooo Technology Co. Ltd (Yongkang, China) (represented by: P. Pérot, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Ford Motor Company (Dearborn, Michigan, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2020 (Case R 65/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ford Motor Company and Yongkang Kugooo Technology.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Yongkang Kugooo Technology Co. Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Case T-218/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission (State aid — Aviation sector — Operational aid granted by Germany to Frankfurt-Hahn airport — Decision not to raise objections — Action for annulment — Status as an interested party — Safeguard of procedural rights — Admissibility — Guidelines on aid in the aviation sector — Doubts as to the compatibility of the aid with the internal market — Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Serious difficulties)
Date: 2021-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, Rhineland-Palatinate, State aid, airline, airport, control of State aid








C_2021263EN.01001401.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/14






Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission
(Case T-218/18) (1)

(State aid - Aviation sector - Operational aid granted by Germany to Frankfurt-Hahn airport - Decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Status as an interested party - Safeguard of procedural rights - Admissibility - Guidelines on aid in the aviation sector - Doubts as to the compatibility of the aid with the internal market - Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Serious difficulties)
(2021/C 263/19)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, T. Maxian Rusche and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, R. Kanitz, S. Heimerl and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), Land Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) (represented by: R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 5289 final of 31 July 2017, on State aid SA.47969 (2017/N) implemented by Germany concerning operating aid granted to Frankfurt-Hahn airport.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2017) 5289 final of 31 July 2017, on State aid SA.47969 (2017/N) implemented by Germany concerning operating aid granted to Frankfurt-Hahn airport;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and bear those incurred by Deutsche Lufthansa AG;










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Land Rheinland-Pfalz to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 19 May 2021 concerning a preliminary draft decision in case AT.40324 – European Government Bonds (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 418/06
Date: 2021-05-19
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, Eurobond, European Economic Area, cartel, control of restrictive practices, exchange of information, restriction on competition, sanction (EU), trade information








C_2021418EN.01000601.xml










15.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/6






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 19 May 2021 concerning a preliminary draft decision in case AT.40324 – European Government Bonds
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 418/06)






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision took place on the primary and secondary market of EGB in the EEA and constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practice between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreement and/or concerted practice was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement.










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s draft decision as regards the addressees for the purpose of finding an infringement, including two addressees where the Commission is time barred to impose fines.










5.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s draft decision as regards the addressees for the purpose of imposing fines.










6.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the calculation of the proxy to the value of sales to enable the application to the case of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.










7.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice.










8.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.










9.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case T-535/20: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2021 — Müller v EUIPO (TIER SHOP) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark TIER SHOP — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Interest in bringing proceedings — Obligation to state reasons — Article 72(4) and the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, animal feedingstuffs, pet food, pet shop, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product, veterinary medicine








C_2021263EN.01002101.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/21






Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2021 — Müller v EUIPO (TIER SHOP)
(Case T-535/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark TIER SHOP - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Interest in bringing proceedings - Obligation to state reasons - Article 72(4) and the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2021/C 263/28)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Müller GmbH & Co. KG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: S. Mühlberger, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2020 (Case R 2600/2019-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign TIER SHOP as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Müller GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.