do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-852/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — Albéa Services v EUIPO — dm-drogerie markt (ALBÉA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark ALBÉA — Earlier international registration designating the European Union — Word mark Balea — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Distinctiveness of the earlier international registration designating the European Union — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, hairdressing and beauty care, packaging product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021452EN.01002301.xml










8.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 452/23






Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — Albéa Services v EUIPO — dm-drogerie markt (ALBÉA)
(Case T-852/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark ALBÉA - Earlier international registration designating the European Union - Word mark Balea - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Distinctiveness of the earlier international registration designating the European Union - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 452/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Albéa Services (Gennevilliers, France) (represented by: J.-H. de Mitry, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2019 (Case R 1480/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt and Albéa Services.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 September 2019 (Case R 1480/2019-2) to the extent that it annulled the decision of the Opposition Division, except in so far as it annulled the decision of the Opposition Division as regards ‘cosmetics’ in Class 3;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Albéa Services;










4.


Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Case T-101/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 –Ilunga Luyoyo v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Freezing of funds — Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded — Manifest error of assessment — Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures — Right to private and family life — Presumption of innocence — Proportionality — Plea of illegality)
Date: 2021-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms control, arms trade, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, rights of the defence








C_2021452EN.01002602.xml










8.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 452/26






Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 –Ilunga Luyoyo v Council
(Case T-101/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures - Right to private and family life - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Plea of illegality)
(2021/C 452/28)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 134), and, second, Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 1) in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.
Case T-274/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — MHCS v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (Shade of the colour orange) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative EU mark depicting a shade of the colour orange — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Examination of the facts of the EUIPO’s own motion — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Nature of the mark — Colour mark — Right to be heard — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, champagne, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021452EN.01003402.xml










8.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 452/34






Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — MHCS v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (Shade of the colour orange)
(Case T-274/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative EU mark depicting a shade of the colour orange - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Examination of the facts of the EUIPO’s own motion - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Nature of the mark - Colour mark - Right to be heard - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2021/C 452/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: MHCS (Épernay, France) (represented by: O. Vrins and B. Raus, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Kefferpütz and K. Wagner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2020 (Case R 2392/2018-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. & MHCS.

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 24 February 2020 (Case R 2392/2018-1);










2.


Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by MHCS;










3.


Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by MHCS.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Case T-102/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 –Kampete v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Freezing of funds — Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded — Manifest error of assessment — Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures — Right to private and family life — Presumption of innocence — Proportionality — Plea of illegality)
Date: 2021-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms control, arms trade, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, rights of the defence








C_2021452EN.01002701.xml










8.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 452/27






Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 –Kampete v Council
(Case T-102/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures - Right to private and family life - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Plea of illegality)
(2021/C 452/29)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile and M.-C. Cadilhac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 134), and, second, Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 1) in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Ilunga Kampete to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.