do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-75/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Abitron Germany v EUIPO — Hetronic International (NOVA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark NOVA — Non-registered earlier national trade mark NOVA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, respectively) — Reference to the national law governing the earlier mark — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical equipment, electronic device, hoisting equipment, industrial equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021349EN.01003202.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/32






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Abitron Germany v EUIPO — Hetronic International (NOVA)
(Case T-75/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark NOVA - Non-registered earlier national trade mark NOVA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, respectively) - Reference to the national law governing the earlier mark - Absolute ground for refusal - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2021/C 349/44)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Abitron Germany GmbH (Langquaid, Germany) (represented by: T. Dolde and K. Lüder, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hetronic International, Inc (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States) (represented by: A. Wehlau, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 December 2019 (Case R 521/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Abitron Germany and Hetronic International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Abitron Germany GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.
Case T-553/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rodríguez Gómez v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Error of assessment — Right to property)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Venezuela, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership








C_2021349EN.01002902.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/29






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rodríguez Gómez v Council
(Case T-553/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Error of assessment - Right to property)
(2021/C 349/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Delcy Eloina Rodríguez Gómez (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Antoniadis, S. Kyriakopoulou and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 12) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 5), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Delcy Eloina Rodríguez Gómez to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Case C-430/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 14 July 2021 — RS
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, administrative sanction, constitutional court, criminal law, criminal procedure, criminal proceedings, disciplinary proceedings, independence of the judiciary, judge, right to justice








C_2021391EN.01001002.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 14 July 2021 — RS
(Case C-430/21)
(2021/C 391/16)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Craiova

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant/Complainant: RS

Questions referred







1.


Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 148(2) of the Romanian Constitution, as interpreted by the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court, Romania) in Decision No 390/2021, according to which national courts have no jurisdiction to examine the conformity with EU law of a provision of national law that has been found to be constitutional by a decision of the Constitutional Court?










2.


Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 99(ș) of Legea nr. 303/2004 privind statutul judecătorilor și procurorilor (Law No 303/2004 on the rules governing judges and prosecutors), which provides for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the application of disciplinary penalties in respect of a judge for failure to comply with a decision of the Constitutional Court, where that judge is called upon to acknowledge the primacy of EU law over the grounds of a decision of the Constitutional Court, that provision of national law depriving him or her of the possibility of applying a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union which he or she regards as taking precedence?










3.


Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a national judicial practice which precludes a judge, on pain of incurring disciplinary liability, from applying the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in criminal proceedings in relation to a complaint regarding the reasonable duration of criminal proceedings, governed by Article 4881 of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure?
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 13 July 2021 2021/C 282/02
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021282EN.01000201.xml










14.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

13 July 2021
(2021/C 282/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1844 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,55 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4380 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85518 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1818 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0857 




ISK


Iceland króna


146,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,3085 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,644 




HUF


Hungarian forint


356,67 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5687 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9276 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,1726 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5840 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4782 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1970 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6981 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6014 




KRW


South Korean won


1 356,76 




ZAR


South African rand


17,2735 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6598 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4920 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 142,99 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9650 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,239 




RUB


Russian rouble


87,8029 




THB


Thai baht


38,635 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1316 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,5550 




INR


Indian rupee


88,2879 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-488/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Guerlain v EUIPO (Shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick) (EU trade mark — Application for registration of a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021349EN.01003601.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/36






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Guerlain v EUIPO (Shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick)
(Case T-488/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for registration of a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 349/50)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Guerlain (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Pétrequin, A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2020 (Case R 2292/2019-1), relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting in the shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2020 (Case R 2292/2019-1);










2.


Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Guerlain for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.






(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.
Case T-389/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — KO v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance — Habitual residence — Period of training)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: allowances and expenses, expatriate worker, probationary period, residence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), temporary employment








C_2021349EN.01003501.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/35






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — KO v Commission
(Case T-389/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance - Habitual residence - Period of training)
(2021/C 349/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: KO (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 18 October 2019 refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders KO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Case T-253/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — BG v Parliament (Civil service — Accredited parliamentary assistants — Termination of the contract — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Retaliation — Manifest errors of assessment — Liability)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Parliament, harassment at work, indemnification, right to justice, servant (EU), termination of a contract, termination of employment








C_2021357EN.01001902.xml










6.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/19






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — BG v Parliament
(Case T-253/19) (1)

(Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistants - Termination of the contract - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Retaliation - Manifest errors of assessment - Liability)
(2021/C 357/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Lázaro Betancor and I. Terwinghe, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 18 May 2018 to terminate the applicant’s contract as an accredited parliamentary assistant and, secondly, compensation for the non-material damage which she claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders BG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Case T-810/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management v EUIPO — Yiwu Dearbody Cosmetics (BODYSECRETS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark BODYSECRETS — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Customary nature — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d), and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d), and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, cosmetic product, dietary product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021357EN.01002102.xml










6.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/21






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management v EUIPO — Yiwu Dearbody Cosmetics (BODYSECRETS)
(Case T-810/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark BODYSECRETS - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Customary nature - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d), and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d), and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2021/C 357/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. (Reynoldsburg, Ohio, United States) (represented by: J. Dickerson, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Yiwu Dearbody Cosmetics Co. Ltd (Yiwu City, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 (Case R 2422/2018-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management and Yiwu Dearbody Cosmetics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10308 — Castik/Abry/RG) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 309/06
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology applications, investment company, merger control, remuneration of work, software, worker participation








C_2021309EN.01000601.xml










2.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/6






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10308 — Castik/Abry/RG)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 309/06)
On 14 July 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 32021M10308. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-297/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Fashioneast and AM.VI. v EUIPO — Moschillo (RICH JOHN RICHMOND) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark RICH JOHN RICHMOND — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Use in a form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character of the mark — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, clothing, cosmetic product, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, footwear industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021349EN.01003402.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/34






Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Fashioneast and AM.VI. v EUIPO — Moschillo (RICH JOHN RICHMOND)
(Case T-297/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark RICH JOHN RICHMOND - Absence of genuine use of a trade mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Use in a form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character of the mark - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2021/C 349/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Fashioneast Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), AM.VI. Srl (Naples, Italy) (represented by: A. Camusso and M. Baghetti, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Moschillo Srl (Avellino, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2020 (Case R 1381/2019-2) relating to revocation proceedings between Moschillo, on the one hand, and Fashioneast and AM.VI., on the other.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Fashioneast Sàrl and AM.VI. Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.