do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-285/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — MCM Products v EUIPO — The Nomad Company (NOMAD) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — European Union word mark NOMAD — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Lack of descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021329EN.01002601.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/26






Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — MCM Products v EUIPO — The Nomad Company (NOMAD)
(Case T-285/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union word mark NOMAD - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Lack of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 329/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: MCM Products AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Eichhammer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: The Nomad Company BV (Zevenaar, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Tigu, lawyer

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2020 (Case R 854/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between MCM Products and The Nomad Company.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders MCM Products AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10097 – AMD / XILINX) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 463/02
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic component, merger control, supplier








C_2021463EN.01000201.xml










16.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10097 – AMD / XILINX)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 463/02)
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 policy’ 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 32021M10097. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-531/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Wolf Oil v EUIPO — Rolf Lubricants (ROLF) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark ROLF — Earlier international mark Wolf — 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) — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard)
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical product, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, special chemicals, trade-mark law








C_2021329EN.01002902.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/29






Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Wolf Oil v EUIPO — Rolf Lubricants (ROLF)
(Case T-531/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark ROLF - Earlier international mark Wolf - 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) - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard)
(2021/C 329/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wolf Oil Corporation NV (Hemiksem, Belgium) (represented by: T. Heremans and L. Depypere, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rolf Lubricants GmbH (Leverkusen, Germany) (represented by: D. Terheggen and S. Sullivan, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2020 (Case R 1958/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Wolf Oil Corporation and Rolf Lubricants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Wolf Oil Corporation NV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.
Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement on civil aviation safety between the European Union and Japan
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Japan, agreement (EU), air safety, civil aviation








L_2021230EN.01000401.xml










30.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 230/4







Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement on civil aviation safety between the European Union and Japan

The Agreement on civil aviation safety between the European Union and Japan signed in Brussels on 22 June 2020, entered into force on 30 June 2021, in accordance with Article 20(1) of the Agreement, as the last notification was deposited on 30 June 2021.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10335 — PAI/Gapave/Apave) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 256/04
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: France, association, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, risk management








C_2021256EN.01000401.xml










30.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10335 — PAI/Gapave/Apave)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 256/04)

1.   
On 18 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:






—


PAI Partners SAS (‘PAI’, France);










—


Association Gapave (‘Gapave’, France);










—


Apave SA and Elansym SAS (‘Apave Group’, France), controlled by Gapave.




PAI and Gapave acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the Apave Group.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for PAI: a private equity firm, mainly active in Europe, whose main investment sectors are consumer goods, industrial goods, distribution, health and business services;










—


for Gapave: an association governed by the French Law of 1 July 1901 with sole control of the Apave Group;










—


for the Apave Group; companies mainly active in France in the field of control of technical, human and environmental risks and in training related in particular to risk control.






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 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 any observations they may have on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission no later than ten days following the date on which this notification is published. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10335 — PAI/Gapave/Apave
Observations can be sent to the Commission by e-mail, 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-370/21: Action brought on 30 June 2021 — Biogena v EUIPO — Alter Farmacia (NUTRIFEN AGNUBALANCE)
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aromatic plant, dietary product, food supplement, fruit product, medical plant, registered trade mark, tea, trade-mark law, vegetable product








C_2021329EN.01004001.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/40






Action brought on 30 June 2021 — Biogena v EUIPO — Alter Farmacia (NUTRIFEN AGNUBALANCE)
(Case T-370/21)
(2021/C 329/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Biogena GmbH & Co KG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: I. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alter Farmacia, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark NUTRIFEN AGNUBALANCE — International registration designating the European Union No 1 430 349

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2021 in Case R 1208/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


grant the registration of the IR 1 430 349 for all applied goods;










—


order EUIPO and Alter Farmacia, S. A. to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-641/19: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — FD v Fusion for Energy Joint Undertaking (Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Psychological harassment — Misuse of powers — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Equal treatment — Responsibilities)
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, damages, equal treatment, harassment at work, psychological harassment, servant (EU), temporary employment, work contract








C_2021320EN.01003502.xml










9.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/35






Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — FD v Fusion for Energy Joint Undertaking
(Case T-641/19) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew - Psychological harassment - Misuse of powers - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Equal treatment - Responsibilities)
(2021/C 320/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: FD (represented by: Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendants: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (represented by: R. Hanak and G. Poszler, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment, in substance, of the decision of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy of 3 December 2018 not to renew the applicant’s fixed-term contract and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision, concerning an overall strategy of harassment of which, in his opinion, he was a victim.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders FD to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Case T-290/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Ceramica Flaminia v EUIPO — Ceramica Cielo (goclean) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark goclean — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, plumbing equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021329EN.01002602.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/26






Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Ceramica Flaminia v EUIPO — Ceramica Cielo (goclean)
(Case T-290/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark goclean - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2021/C 329/34)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Ceramica Flaminia SpA (Civita Castellana, Italy) (represented by: A. Improda and R. Arista, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ceramica Cielo SpA (Fabrica di Roma, Italy) (represented by: L. Ghedina, L. Gyulai and E. Fassina, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2020 (Case R 991/2018-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ceramica Cielo and Ceramica Flaminia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ceramica Flaminia SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Case T-373/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Framery v EUIPO — Smartblock (Transportable building) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Community design representing a transportable building — Earlier designs — Proof of disclosure — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — No different overall impression — Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: building, designs and models








C_2021329EN.01002801.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/28






Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Framery v EUIPO — Smartblock (Transportable building)
(Case T-373/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Community design representing a transportable building - Earlier designs - Proof of disclosure - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - No different overall impression - Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons)
(2021/C 329/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Framery Oy (Tampere, Finland) (represented by: A. Renck and C. Stöber, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Smartblock Oy (Helsinki, Finland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2020 (Case R 616/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Smartblock and Framery.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Framery Oy to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10315 — BCI/ABP/TIG/Certain assets of Arauco) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 367/02
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Chile, economic concentration, forest, investment company, merger control, wooded area








C_2021367EN.01000201.xml










13.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 367/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10315 — BCI/ABP/TIG/Certain assets of Arauco)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 367/02)
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 32021M10315. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-709/19: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — GW v Court of Auditors (Civil service — Officials — Official in a state of total permanent invalidity — Periodic medical examination — Arrangements — Application for the matter to be referred to the Invalidity Committee — Refusal — Article 15 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Conclusion No 273/15 of the Committee of Heads of Administration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, disability insurance, disabled person, medical examination, worker with disabilities








C_2021320EN.01003601.xml










9.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/36






Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — GW v Court of Auditors
(Case T-709/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Official in a state of total permanent invalidity - Periodic medical examination - Arrangements - Application for the matter to be referred to the Invalidity Committee - Refusal - Article 15 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Conclusion No 273/15 of the Committee of Heads of Administration - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)
(2021/C 320/40)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: GW (represented by: J.N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors (represented by: C. Lesauvage, Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors of 22 May 2019 dismissing the applicant’s application to refer the matter to the Invalidity Committee.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Court of Auditors of 22 May 2019 dismissing GW’s application to refer the matter to the Invalidity Committee;










2.


Orders the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
Case T-554/16: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — BZ v ECB (Public service — ECB staff — Application for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease — Articles 6.3.11 to 6.3.13 of the ECB Staff Rules — Irregularity of the procedure — No inquiry report — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, occupational disease, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021320EN.01003501.xml










9.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/35






Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — BZ v ECB
(Case T-554/16) (1)

(Public service - ECB staff - Application for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease - Articles 6.3.11 to 6.3.13 of the ECB Staff Rules - Irregularity of the procedure - No inquiry report - Non-contractual liability)
(2021/C 320/38)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: BZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Carlini and F. Malfrère, acting as Agents, assisted 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 seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the ECB of 23 July 2014 which closed the procedure for recognition of the occupational origin of the applicant’s disease, and second, compensation for the material and non-material harm that the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 23 July 2014 which closed the procedure for recognition of the occupational origin of BZ’s disease;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the ECB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015 (case initially registered at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-79/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).