do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10410 — SEGRO/PSPIB/Target Asset in Hamburg) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 360/01
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Germany, Hamburg, building, economic concentration, industrial building, investment company, logistics, merger control, ownership, property leasing, storage








C_2021360EN.01000101.xml










8.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 360/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10410 — SEGRO/PSPIB/Target Asset in Hamburg)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 360/01)
On 1 September 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 32021M10410. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-834/19: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — e*Message Wireless Information Services v EUIPO — Apple (e*message) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark e*message — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Declaration of invalidity — Provisions applicable ratione temporis — Application of subsequent case-law — Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty)
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, data processing, electronic mail, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2021422EN.01001201.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/12






Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — e*Message Wireless Information Services v EUIPO — Apple (e*message)
(Case T-834/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark e*message - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Declaration of invalidity - Provisions applicable ratione temporis - Application of subsequent case-law - Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty)
(2021/C 422/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: e*Message Wireless Information Services GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Hotz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: V. Schmitz-Fohrmann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2019 (Case R 2454/2018-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Apple and e*Message Wireless Information Services.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders e*Message Wireless Information Services GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Apple Inc.






(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Case T-377/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — KN v EESC (Law governing the institutions — Member of the EESC — OLAF investigation into allegations of psychological harassment — Decision to discharge a member from his or her supervisory and personnel management activities — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Measure taken in the interest of the service — Legal basis — Rights of the defence — Refusal to grant access to the annnexes to the OLAF report — Disclosure of the substance of the witness statements in the form of a summary — Liability)
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, access to information, damages, disciplinary proceedings, disclosure of information, evidence, harassment at work, psychological harassment, rights of the defence








C_2021452EN.01003601.xml










8.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 452/36






Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — KN v EESC
(Case T-377/20) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Member of the EESC - OLAF investigation into allegations of psychological harassment - Decision to discharge a member from his or her supervisory and personnel management activities - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Measure taken in the interest of the service - Legal basis - Rights of the defence - Refusal to grant access to the annnexes to the OLAF report - Disclosure of the substance of the witness statements in the form of a summary - Liability)
(2021/C 452/42)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: KN (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld and M. Aboudi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka, A. Carvajal García-Valdecasas and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and by A. Duron, lawyer)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the EESC of 9 June 2020 and, second, application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders KN to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Case T-463/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Wong (GT RACING) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark GT RACING — Earlier EU figurative trade mark representing bold curved, vertical and horizontal lines — Earlier EU word mark GT — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Earlier non-registered national marks — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Rules governing common-law action for passing off — No misrepresentation — Use in the course of trade of more than mere local significance — Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom)
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021422EN.01001401.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/14






Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Wong (GT RACING)
(Case T-463/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark GT RACING - Earlier EU figurative trade mark representing bold curved, vertical and horizontal lines - Earlier EU word mark GT - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Earlier non-registered national marks - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Rules governing common-law action for passing off - No misrepresentation - Use in the course of trade of more than mere local significance - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom)
(2021/C 422/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Wai Leong Wong (Glasgow, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 (Case R 1612/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe and Mr Wong.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.
Case T-697/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Bimbo Donuts Iberia v EUIPO — Hijos de Antonio Juan (DONAS DULCESOL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark DONAS DULCESOL — Earlier national word mark DONAS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Lack of proof of genuine use of earlier mark — Classification of the goods in respect of which genuine use has been shown — Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal product, coffee, foodstuff, milk product, processed food product, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, tea, trade-mark law








C_2021422EN.01001601.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/16






Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Bimbo Donuts Iberia v EUIPO — Hijos de Antonio Juan (DONAS DULCESOL)
(Case T-697/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark DONAS DULCESOL - Earlier national word mark DONAS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of proof of genuine use of earlier mark - Classification of the goods in respect of which genuine use has been shown - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2021/C 422/22)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Bimbo Donuts Iberia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez, I. Robledo McClymont and M. Hernández Gázquez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hijos de Antonio Juan, SL (Villalonga, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2020 (Case R 514/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Bimbo Donuts Iberia and Hijos de Antonio Juan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bimbo Donuts Iberia, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10423 — AEA Investors/Polygon Holding) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 386/01
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building industry, consumer goods, economic concentration, industrial product, investment company, merger control, provision of services, retail trade








C_2021386EN.01000101.xml










23.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 386/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10423 — AEA Investors/Polygon Holding)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 386/01)
On 1 September 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 32021M10423. 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.10440 — SEGRO/PSPIB/Varia Class Logistics) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 351/11
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: business park, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business, real property, storage








C_2021351EN.01002401.xml










1.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/24






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10440 — SEGRO/PSPIB/Varia Class Logistics)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 351/11)

1.   
On 24 August 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:






—


SEGRO plc (‘SEGRO’, United Kingdom),










—


Public Sector Pension Investment Board (‘PSPIB’, Canada),










—


Varia Class Logistics SL (‘Target Asset’, Spain).




SEGRO and PSPIB acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of the Target Asset.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are as follows:






—


For SEGRO: ownership, asset management and development of modern warehousing and light industrial properties located around major conurbations and at key transportation hubs across a number of EU countries.










—


For PSPIB: management of a diversified global investment portfolio including stocks, bonds and other fixed-income securities, and investments in private equity, real estate, infrastructure, natural resources and private debt.










—


For the Target Asset: ownership of an industrial site situated in Martorelles, Barcelona.






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.10440 — SEGRO/PSPIB/Varia Class Logistics
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-536/21: Action brought on 1 September 2021 — Belaeronavigatsia v Council
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person








C_2021422EN.01003201.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/32






Action brought on 1 September 2021 — Belaeronavigatsia v Council
(Case T-536/21)
(2021/C 422/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Belaeronavigatsia (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/999 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ L 219 I, 21.6.2021, p. 55);










—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1001 of 21 June 2021 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment. The applicant alleges, in that regard, that there is no factual justification for the contested acts.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a failure to comply with the principle of proportionality on the basis that the contested act risks jeopardising the objective of safety in international aviation.
Case C-387/20: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Zastępca notarialny w Krapkowicach Marcin Margoński, on behalf of Justyna Gawlica, Notariusz w Krapkowicach — Poland) — Proceedings brought by OKR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 267 TFEU — Notary acting as a deputy for another notary — Definition of ‘court or tribunal’ — Criteria — Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bilateral agreement, foreign national, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, law of succession, notary, ordinary court of law, residence, third country








C_2021471EN.01001202.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/12






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Zastępca notarialny w Krapkowicach Marcin Margoński, on behalf of Justyna Gawlica, Notariusz w Krapkowicach — Poland) — Proceedings brought by OKR
(Case C-387/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 267 TFEU - Notary acting as a deputy for another notary - Definition of ‘court or tribunal’ - Criteria - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)
(2021/C 471/16)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring body

Zastępca notarialny w Krapkowicach Marcin Margoński, on behalf of Justyna Gawlica, Notariusz w Krapkowicach

Party to the main proceedings


Applicant: OKR

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from a Zastępca notarialny w Krapkowicach (notary acting as a deputy for another notary and practising in Krapkowice, Poland) is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Case T-18/21: Order of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Be Smart v Commission (State aid — Complaint — Action for failure to act — Commission’s adoption of a position after the action was brought and which put an end to the failure to act — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, action for failure to act, aid to undertakings, consortium, control of State aid, information technology industry








C_2021431EN.01003702.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/37






Order of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Be Smart v Commission
(Case T-18/21) (1)

(State aid - Complaint - Action for failure to act - Commission’s adoption of a position after the action was brought and which put an end to the failure to act - No need to adjudicate)
(2021/C 431/45)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Be Smart Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Satta, G. Roberti, A. Romano and I. Perego, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission acted unlawfully by failing to define its position on the complaint made by the applicant on 15 October 2014 concerning alleged State aid measures granted by the Italian Republic to the interuniversity consortium Cineca.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Be Smart Srl.






(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 31 August 2021 2021/C 351/10
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021351EN.01002301.xml










1.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/23






Euro exchange rates (1)

31 August 2021
(2021/C 351/10)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1834 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,95 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4360 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85875 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1625 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0799 




ISK


Iceland króna


149,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,2600 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,523 




HUF


Hungarian forint


348,80 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5296 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9359 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,8310 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6156 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4896 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2086 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6760 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5897 




KRW


South Korean won


1 370,03 




ZAR


South African rand


17,2282 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6465 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4900 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 879,69 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9194 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,765 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,7600 




THB


Thai baht


38,129 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1386 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,7864 




INR


Indian rupee


86,3850 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-539/21: Action brought on 1 September 2021 — the airscreen company v EUIPO — Moviescreens Rental (airframe)
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, audiovisual equipment, building materials, electric machinery, film industry, hiring, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021422EN.01003301.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/33






Action brought on 1 September 2021 — the airscreen company v EUIPO — Moviescreens Rental (airframe)
(Case T-539/21)
(2021/C 422/43)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and D. Mienert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Moviescreens Rental GmbH (Damme, Germany)

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: EU figurative mark airframe — EU trade mark No 17 948 222

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2021 in Case R 63/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.