do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-362/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Acciona v EUIPO — Agencia Negociadora PB (REACCIONA) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark REACCIONA — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Existence of domestic legal proceedings — No proper reason for non-use)
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, metalworking, organisation of transport, packaging, registered trade mark, storage, trade-mark law, travel








C_2021329EN.01002701.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/27






Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Acciona v EUIPO — Agencia Negociadora PB (REACCIONA)
(Case T-362/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark REACCIONA - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Existence of domestic legal proceedings - No proper reason for non-use)
(2021/C 329/35)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Acciona SA (Alcobendas, Spain) (represented by: J. Erdozain López, 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: Agencia Negociadora PB SL (Las Rozas de Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros and F. Ortega Sánchez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 (Case R 652/2019-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Agencia Negociadora PB and Acciona.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Acciona SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Agencia Negociadora PB SL.






(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.
Case T-204/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Zoom v EUIPO — Facetec (ZOOM) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark ZOOM — Earlier EU figurative and word marks ZOOM — 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: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, micro-computer, mobile phone, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2021329EN.01002201.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/22






Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Zoom v EUIPO — Facetec (ZOOM)
(Case T-204/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark ZOOM - Earlier EU figurative and word marks ZOOM - 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 329/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Zoom KK (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. de Arpe Tejero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Zajfert, 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: Facetec, Inc. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: P. Wilhelm, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2020 (Case R 507/2019 1) relating to opposition proceedings between Zoom KK and Facetec.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Zoom KK to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10316 — Macquarie/Warrington/Bingo) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 284/02
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Australia, banking, consultancy, economic concentration, financial services, investment company, management of resources, merger control, waste recycling








C_2021284EN.01000201.xml










16.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10316 — Macquarie/Warrington/Bingo)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 284/02)
On 30 June 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 32021M10316. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M. 10308 — Castik/Abry/RG) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 256/07
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology applications, investment company, merger control, remuneration of work, software, worker participation








C_2021256EN.01001001.xml










30.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/10






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M. 10308 — Castik/Abry/RG)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 256/07)

1.   
On 21 June 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Castik Capital S.à r.l. (‘Castik’, Luxembourg),










—


Abry Partners II LLC (‘Abry’, USA), and,










—


RG Engagement Group Limited (‘RG’, UK).




Castik and Abry acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of RG.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Castik: investment company focusing on identifying and developing investment opportunities across Europe.










—


for Abry: private equity firm managing funds that in invest in a broad range of businesses focusing on media, communications and information services.










—


for RG: company active in the employee engagement sector, that designs, implements and manages solutions relating to employee benefit, internal communication, employee incentive rewards as well as an administration of governmental benefit schemes. RG offers its solutions through its software platform SmartHub.






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. 10308 — Castik/Abry/RG
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 T-369/21: Action brought on 30 June 2021 — Unimax Stationery v EUIPO — Mitsubishi Pencil (uni)
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, office supplies, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021338EN.01002701.xml










23.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/27






Action brought on 30 June 2021 — Unimax Stationery v EUIPO — Mitsubishi Pencil (uni)
(Case T-369/21)
(2021/C 338/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Unimax Stationery (Daman, India) (represented by: E. Amoah, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mitsubishi Pencil Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)

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: European Union figurative mark uni — European Union trade mark No 6 920 615

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2021 in Case R 1909/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council .
Case C-405/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Slovenia) lodged on 30 June 2021 — FV v NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d.
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, unfair terms of contract








C_2021349EN.01002302.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Slovenia) lodged on 30 June 2021 — FV v NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d.
(Case C-405/21)
(2021/C 349/30)
Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Mariboru

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: FV

Respondent: NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d.

Question referred

Is Article 3(1), read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 8a, of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) to be interpreted as not precluding national provisions which characterise the two conditions of ‘good faith’ and ‘a significant imbalance’ as alternatives (as separate, autonomous and independent conditions), such that, for the purposes of deciding whether a contractual term is unfair, it is sufficient if facts exist which establish that just one of those two conditions is fulfilled?


(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case T-232/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Biovene Cosmetics v EUIPO — Eugène Perma France (BIOVÈNE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark BIOVÈNE — Earlier EU word mark BIORENE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021329EN.01002301.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/23






Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Biovene Cosmetics v EUIPO — Eugène Perma France (BIOVÈNE)
(Case T-232/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark BIOVÈNE - Earlier EU word mark BIORENE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 329/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Biovene Cosmetics, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, 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, intervener before the General Court: Eugène Perma France (Saint-Denis, France) (represented by: S. Havard Duclos, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2020 (Case R 739/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Eugène Perma France and Biovene Cosmetics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Biovene Cosmetics, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Case T-746/19: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — GY v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Remuneration — Household allowance — Amendment of the scheme applicable — Rejection of the 2019 application — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment — No transitional measures)
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, family benefit, remuneration of work, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2021320EN.01003701.xml










9.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/37






Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — GY v ECB
(Case T-746/19) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Remuneration - Household allowance - Amendment of the scheme applicable - Rejection of the 2019 application - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment - No transitional measures)
(2021/C 320/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: GY (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and D. Nessaf, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union for annulment of the ECB’s decision of 28 January 2019 not to grant the applicant the household allowance for 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 28 January 2019 in so far as it refuses to grant the household allowance for 2019 to GY;










2.


Orders the ECB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 36, 3.2.2020.
Case T-227/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Biovene Cosmetics v EUIPO — Eugène Perma France (BIOVÈNE BARCELONA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BIOVÈNE BARCELONA — Earlier EU word mark BIORENE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021329EN.01002202.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/22






Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Biovene Cosmetics v EUIPO — Eugène Perma France (BIOVÈNE BARCELONA)
(Case T-227/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark BIOVÈNE BARCELONA - Earlier EU word mark BIORENE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 329/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Biovene Cosmetics, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, 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, intervener before the General Court: Eugène Perma France (Saint-Denis, France) (represented by: S. Havard Duclos, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2020 (Case R 1661/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Eugène Perma France and Biovene Cosmetics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Biovene Cosmetics, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.