do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1309 of 2 August 2021 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [‘Värmländskt skrädmjöl’ (PGI)]
Date: 2021-08-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Sweden, Värmland county, cereal flour, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2021284EN.01001401.xml










9.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 284/14








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/1309
of 2 August 2021
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [‘Värmländskt skrädmjöl’ (PGI)]


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Sweden’s application to register the name ‘Värmländskt skrädmjöl’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Värmländskt skrädmjöl’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Värmländskt skrädmjöl’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 August 2021.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 136, 19.4.2021, p. 8.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case C-473/21 P: Appeal brought on 2 August 2021 by Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2021 in Case T-854/19, Franz Schröder v EUIPO
Date: 2021-08-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic commerce, furniture industry, plumbing equipment, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2022064EN.01000702.xml










7.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/7






Appeal brought on 2 August 2021 by Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2021 in Case T-854/19, Franz Schröder v EUIPO
(Case C-473/21 P)
(2022/C 64/10)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: L. Pechan, N. Fangmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, RDS Design ApS
By order of 8 December 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG should bear its own costs.
Case T-458/21: Action brought on 2 August 2021 — Quantic Dream v EUIPO — Quentia (Q)
Date: 2021-08-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, broadcasting, clothing, office supplies, registered trade mark, software, television, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2021382EN.01002801.xml










20.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/28






Action brought on 2 August 2021 — Quantic Dream v EUIPO — Quentia (Q)
(Case T-458/21)
(2021/C 382/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Quantic Dream (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Quentia GmbH (Gersthofen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Q — Application for registration No 18 069 734

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2021 in Case R 2070/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


and, by way of correction, reject the opposition NooB 3 092 566 to the registration of the European Union trademark application Q Noo18 069 734 filed on 21 May 2019;










—


order that the EUIPO and/or Quentia GmbH bear the costs involved in the proceedings before the EUIPO and before the Court by the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 71(1)(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;










—


Infringement of Article 7 TFEU;










—


Infringement of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.10407 — AIP/Alvance Dunkerque Target Business) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 309/01
Date: 2021-08-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, industrial enterprise, investment company, iron and steel industry, merger control, metallurgical industry








C_2021309EN.01000101.xml










2.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/1






Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.10407 — AIP/Alvance Dunkerque Target Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 309/01)
On 16 July 2021, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) (‘Merger Regulation’).
This notification concerned the following undertakings:






—


American Industrial Partners Capital Fund VII, LP (US), an investment fund managed by American Industrial Partners (collectively referred to as ‘AIP’), and










—


Alvance Aluminium Dunkerque (‘Dunkerque Aluminium’, France), currently owned by Liberty France Industries 1 SA, in turn ultimately owned by Alvance Aluminium Group and Mr Gupta.




The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


AIP is a private equity firm focused on buying and improving industrial businesses,










—


Dunkerque Aluminium is a primary aluminium producer, which operates an aluminium smelter in Loon-Plage near Dunkerque (France).




On 19 July 2021, the notifying party informed the Commission that it withdrew its notification.


(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-456/21: Action brought on 2 August 2021 — Bank of America and Bank of America Corporation v Commission
Date: 2021-08-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Eurobond, bond, cartel, control of restrictive practices, government, international cartel, investment bank, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2021368EN.01003701.xml










13.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/37






Action brought on 2 August 2021 — Bank of America and Bank of America Corporation v Commission
(Case T-456/21)
(2021/C 368/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Bank of America N.A. (Charlotte, North Carolina, United States), Bank of America Corporation (Wilmington, North Carolina, United States) (represented by: D. Bailey, Barrister, D. Liddell, Solicitor, and D. Slater, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision C(2021) 3489 of 20 May 2021 in Case AT.40324 — European Government Bonds (‘Decision’), in so far as it concerns the Applicants; and










—


order the Commission to bear the applicants’ costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: the Commission’s finding that the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement is based on an error of law and/or assessment in the application of Article 101(1) TFEU. In particular, the Commission applied the wrong test for participation in a single and continuous infringement; further or alternatively, the Commission has wrongly applied the law concerning the elements of a single and continuous infringement to the facts of this case.










2.


Second plea in law: in circumstances in which, pursuant to Article 25(1)(b) of EC Regulation 1/2003, the conduct of the applicants fell outside the limitation period for imposing a fine, the Commission erred in concluding that there is sufficient legitimate interest, within the meaning of Article 7of Regulation (EC) 1/2003, in finding an infringement against the applicants.










3.


Third plea in law: the Commission infringed the rights of the defence in that (i) the case against the applicants in the Decision did not correspond in a fundamental way with the essential case advanced against the applicants in the Statement of Objections; (ii) the Commission failed to explain why it considered the contacts referenced obliquely only in Annex 1 to the Statement of Objections and Annex 1 to the Decision were unlawful and (iii) the applicants were not given the opportunity to respond to new points made in the Decision — that had not been made in the Statement of Objections — about certain communications.
Case C-475/21 P: Appeal brought on 2 August 2021 by Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2021 in Case T-856/19, Franz Schröder v EUIPO
Date: 2021-08-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, architecture, building industry, furniture industry, product design, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022064EN.01000801.xml










7.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/8






Appeal brought on 2 August 2021 by Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2021 in Case T-856/19, Franz Schröder v EUIPO
(Case C-475/21 P)
(2022/C 64/12)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: L. Pechan, N. Fangmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, RDS Design ApS
By order of 8 December 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG should bear its own costs.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.10262 — Facebook/Kustomer) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 314/01
Date: 2021-08-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Internet site, advertising, consultancy, economic concentration, merger control, social media, software








C_2021314EN.01000101.xml










6.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/1






Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.10262 — Facebook/Kustomer)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 314/01)
On 2 August 2021, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.10262 — Facebook/Kustomer, to the following 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’).
Case T-457/21: Action brought on 2 August 2021 — Coulter Ventures v EUIPO — iWeb (R)
Date: 2021-08-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2021391EN.01002002.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/20






Action brought on 2 August 2021 — Coulter Ventures v EUIPO — iWeb (R)
(Case T-457/21)
(2021/C 391/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Coulter Ventures LLC (Columbus, Ohio, United States) (represented by: R. Dissmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: iWeb GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark R — Application for registration No 13 750 849

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2021 in Case R 2789/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs including the applicant’s costs incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 30 July 2021 2021/C 309/09
Date: 2021-08-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021309EN.01000901.xml










2.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/9






Euro exchange rates (1)

30 July 2021
(2021/C 309/09)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1891 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,39 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4379 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85140 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1868 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0771 




ISK


Iceland króna


146,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,4405 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,501 




HUF


Hungarian forint


357,20 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5636 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9203 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,9985 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6133 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4791 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2451 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6990 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6090 




KRW


South Korean won


1 368,74 




ZAR


South African rand


17,3283 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6838 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5003 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 184,46 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0180 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,479 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,7116 




THB


Thai baht


39,098 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,0716 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,6277 




INR


Indian rupee


88,3941 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-472/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 August 2021 — Monz Handelsgesellschaft lnternational mbH & Co. KG v Büchel GmbH & Co. Fahrzeugtechnik KG
Date: 2021-08-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designs and models, originating product








C_2021471EN.01001802.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 August 2021 — Monz Handelsgesellschaft lnternational mbH & Co. KG v Büchel GmbH & Co. Fahrzeugtechnik KG
(Case C-472/21)
(2021/C 471/26)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Monz Handelsgesellschaft lnternational mbH & Co. KG

Respondent on a point of law: Büchel GmbH & Co. Fahrzeugtechnik KG

Questions referred







1.


Is a component part incorporating a design a ‘visible’ component within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 98/71/EC (1) if it is objectively possible to recognise the design when the component is mounted, or should visibility be assessed under certain conditions of use or from a certain observer perspective?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is that visibility under certain conditions of use or from a certain observer perspective is the decisive factor:






(a)


When assessing the ‘normal use’ of a complex product by the end user within the meaning of Article 3(3) and (4) of Directive 98/71, is it the use intended by the manufacturer of the component part or complex product that is relevant, or the customary use of the complex product by the end user?










(b)


What are the criteria for assessing whether the use of a complex product by the end user constitutes a ‘normal use’ within the meaning of Article 3(3) and (4) of Directive 98/71?










(1)  Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs (OJ 1998 L 289, p. 28).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10305 — CDPQ/DWS/Ermewa) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 318/01
Date: 2021-08-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: container, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, rental business, vehicle on rails, vehicle rental








C_2021318EN.01000101.xml










9.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10305 — CDPQ/DWS/Ermewa)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 318/01)
On 2 August 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 32021M10305. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-474/21 P: Appeal brought on 2 August 2021 by Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2021 in Case T-855/19, Franz Schröder v EUIPO
Date: 2021-08-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, furniture industry, registered trade mark, sound reproduction equipment, trade-mark law








C_2022064EN.01000703.xml










7.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/7






Appeal brought on 2 August 2021 by Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2021 in Case T-855/19, Franz Schröder v EUIPO
(Case C-474/21 P)
(2022/C 64/11)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: L. Pechan, N. Fangmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, RDS Design ApS
By order of 8 December 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG should bear its own costs.