do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-474/21: Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Schenk Italia v EUIPO — Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella (AMICONE)
Date: 2021-08-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2021382EN.01003301.xml










20.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/33






Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Schenk Italia v EUIPO — Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella (AMICONE)
(Case T-474/21)
(2021/C 382/46)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Schenk Italia SpA (Ora, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and M. Lucchini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella (San Pietro in Cariano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark AMICONE — European Union trade mark No 11 005 725

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 June 2021 in Case R 2885/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


find and declare that the European Union mark AMICONE No 11 005 725 does not constitute an evocation of the PDO ‘Amarone della Valpolicella’ for the purposes of Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, (1) that it is not caught by any of the other absolute and relative grounds for invalidity raised by the Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella and that it is therefore valid;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella and any other interveners.





Pleas in law







—


Incorrect identification of the significant part of the PDO ‘Amarone della Valpolicella’ for the purposes of the application of Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013;










—


Incorrect application of Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 as regards the assessment of the evocation of the PDO by the contested mark;










—


Incorrect application of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council read in conjunction with Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;










—


The mark AMICONE is not caught by any other absolute or relative ground for invalidity relied on by the Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella.






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 3 August 2021 2021/C 312/02
Date: 2021-08-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021312EN.01000201.xml










4.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

3 August 2021
(2021/C 312/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1885 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,70 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4376 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85355 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2045 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0735 




ISK


Iceland króna


146,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,4343 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,490 




HUF


Hungarian forint


354,59 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5562 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9183 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,9576 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6086 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4874 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2428 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6953 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6056 




KRW


South Korean won


1 364,59 




ZAR


South African rand


17,1001 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6818 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5005 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 995,64 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0161 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,946 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,7063 




THB


Thai baht


39,244 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1791 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,5939 




INR


Indian rupee


88,2175 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-481/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 4 August 2021 — TX v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Date: 2021-08-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, data protection, judicial review, personal data, right to justice, right to work, threat to national security








C_2021422EN.01000801.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 4 August 2021 — TX v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-481/21)
(2021/C 422/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TX

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundeskriminalamt

Questions referred







1.


Considered in the light of Article 54 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, (1) is Article 15(3) and (1) of Directive (EU) 2016/680, read in conjunction with Article 14 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that it permits national legislation






(a)


under which, in the case of joint responsibility for data processing, the entity actually responsible for the data stored does not have to be named, and










(b)


which also allows access to be refused without substantive reasons being given to a court?














2.


If Questions 1(a) and 1(b) are answered in the affirmative, is Article 15(3) and (1) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 consistent with the right to an effective judicial remedy under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) even though it would thus be impossible for the court






(a)


to join to the proceedings, in accordance with national procedural rules, in a multi-stage administrative procedure, the other authority which is involved and is actually responsible and which must give its consent to the provision of access to data; and










(b)


substantively to verify whether the conditions for the refusal of access are met and have been correctly applied by the authority refusing access?














3.


Does the refusal of access and thus of an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter unlawfully interfere with the freedom to choose an occupation under Article 15 of the Charter in the case where the information stored is used to exclude a data subject from the desired activity on the ground of an alleged security risk?






(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 89).

(2)  OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391.
Case T-467/21: Action brought on 4 August 2021 — DBM Videovertrieb v EUIPO — Nube (Lío)
Date: 2021-08-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, miscellaneous industries, personal effects, precious metal, precious stones, public relations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, work of art








C_2021382EN.01003102.xml










20.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/31






Action brought on 4 August 2021 — DBM Videovertrieb v EUIPO — Nube (Lío)
(Case T-467/21)
(2021/C 382/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: DBM Videovertrieb GmbH (Wesel, Germany) (represented by: J. Fusbahn and D. Dawirs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nube, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Lío in golden yellow and black colour — European Union trade mark No 17 225 939

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2021 in Case R 1220/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and, consequently, the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 April 2020 (Invalidity No. 000025781 C);










—


reject the application for a declaration of invalidity and keep the contested trademark registration No. 17 225 939 registered;










—


decide that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the EUIPO and Nube, SL.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-465/21: Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Ionfarma v EUIPO — LG Electronics (AION)
Date: 2021-08-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, air conditioning, electrical engineering, electronic device, information technology industry, mobile phone, registered trade mark, robotics, trade-mark law, water treatment








C_2021382EN.01003001.xml










20.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/30






Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Ionfarma v EUIPO — LG Electronics (AION)
(Case T-465/21)
(2021/C 382/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ionfarma, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark AION — Application for registration No 17 892 367

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2021 in Case R 2223/2020–4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


revoke the contested decision and reject the European Union trademark Noo17 892 367 AION for all goods;










—


order EUIPO and, in case LG Electronics decides to intervene in the present proceedings, LG Electronics to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10337 — BC Partners/Vista Equity Partners/EAB Global) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 324/02
Date: 2021-08-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, higher education, information technology industry, investment company, merger control, multinational enterprise








C_2021324EN.01000201.xml










12.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 324/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10337 — BC Partners/Vista Equity Partners/EAB Global)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 324/02)
On 4 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 32021M10337. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-466/21: Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Baumberger v EUIPO — Nube (Lío)
Date: 2021-08-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, gift item, household article, product design, registered trade mark, smoking, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2021382EN.01003101.xml










20.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/31






Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Baumberger v EUIPO — Nube (Lío)
(Case T-466/21)
(2021/C 382/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dino Baumberger (Wesel, Germany) (represented by: J. Fusbahn and D. Dawirs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nube, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Lío in golden yellow and black colour — European Union trade mark No 14 194 872

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2021 in Case R 1221/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and, consequently, the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 April 2020 (Invalidity No. 000025762 C);










—


reject the application for a declaration of invalidity and keep the contested trademark registration No. 14 194 872 registered;










—


decide that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the EUIPO and Nube SL.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.