do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-124/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — M/S. Indeutsch International v EUIPO — 135 Kirkstall (Representation of chevrons between two parallel lines) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark representing chevrons between two parallel lines — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign of which an EU trade mark may consist — Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Obligation to rule on the action — Article 71(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Cross-claim)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, knitted and crocheted goods, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021490EN.01003601.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/36






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — M/S. Indeutsch International v EUIPO — 135 Kirkstall (Representation of chevrons between two parallel lines)
(Case T-124/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing chevrons between two parallel lines - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign of which an EU trade mark may consist - Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Obligation to rule on the action - Article 71(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Cross-claim)
(2021/C 490/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: M/S. Indeutsch International (Noida, India) (represented by: G. Glas, lawyer, D. Stone, A. Dykes, A. Leonelli, K. Hughes, Solicitors, and S. Malynicz QC)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: 135 Kirkstall, Inc., formerly Crafts Americana Group, Inc. (Vancouver, Washington, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, and J. Fish, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2019 (Case R 2672/2017-G), relating to invalidity proceedings between Crafts Americana Group and M/S. Indeutsch International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2019 (Case R 2672/2017-G);










2.


Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the main action;










3.


Orders M/S. Indeutsch International and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by 135 Kirkstall, Inc., formerly Crafts Americana Group, Inc., in relation to the cross-claim and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;










4.


Orders 135 Kirkstall, formerly Crafts Americana Group, to bear its own costs relating to the main action.






(1)  OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.
Case T-417/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Esteves Lopes Granja v EUIPO — IVDP (PORTWO GIN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark PORTWO GIN — Earlier designation of origin ‘Porto’ — Concepts of ‘use’ and ‘exploitation’ of a protected designation of origin — Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, spirits, trade-mark law








C_2021481EN.01002601.xml










29.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 481/26






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Esteves Lopes Granja v EUIPO — IVDP (PORTWO GIN)
(Case T-417/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark PORTWO GIN - Earlier designation of origin ‘Porto’ - Concepts of ‘use’ and ‘exploitation’ of a protected designation of origin - Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013)
(2021/C 481/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Joaquim José Esteves Lopes Granja (Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal) (represented by: O. Santos Costa, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP (IVDP) (Peso da Régua, Portugal) (represented by: P. Sousa e Silva, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2020 (Case R 993/2019-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP and Joaquim Jósé Esteves Lopes Granja.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Joaquim José Esteves Lopes Granja to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Case T-121/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — IP v Commission (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — OLAF investigation — Reimbursement of medical expenses — Disciplinary penalty — Termination of contract without notice — Article 10(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Reoffending — Article 27 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Decision granting a request that no mention of a previous penalty remain in the personal file — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations — Sanction cannot be enforced or invoked against the official if no mention of it remains in the personal file)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European official, administrative sanction, contract staff, disciplinary proceedings, health expenditure, termination of employment








C_2021490EN.01003502.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/35






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — IP v Commission
(Case T-121/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - OLAF investigation - Reimbursement of medical expenses - Disciplinary penalty - Termination of contract without notice - Article 10(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Reoffending - Article 27 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Decision granting a request that no mention of a previous penalty remain in the personal file - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations - Sanction cannot be enforced or invoked against the official if no mention of it remains in the personal file)
(2021/C 490/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: IP (represented by: L. Levi, S. Rodrigues and J. Martins, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Commission's decision of 21 August 2019 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary penalty of termination without notice of his employment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 21 August 2019 imposing on IP the disciplinary penalty of termination without notice of his employment;










2.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.
Case T-372/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVEDERM) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark JUVEDERM — Genuine use of the mark — Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark is registered — Use with the consent of the proprietor — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021481EN.01002401.xml










29.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 481/24






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVEDERM)
(Case T-372/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark JUVEDERM - Genuine use of the mark - Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark is registered - Use with the consent of the proprietor - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 481/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor, and T. de Haan, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2020 (Case R 877/2019-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Dermavita Company and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. to pay the costs of the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
Joined Cases T-233/19 and T-234/19: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Infineon Technologies Dresden and Infineon Technologies v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme implemented by Germany for some large electricity consumers — Exemption from network charges in respect of the 2012-2013 period — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and unlawful, and ordering the recovery of the aid paid — Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Admissibility — Concept of aid — State resources)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy consumption, energy supply, equal treatment, reimbursement of aid








C_2021471EN.01004101.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/41






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Infineon Technologies Dresden and Infineon Technologies v Commission
(Joined Cases T-233/19 and T-234/19) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme implemented by Germany for some large electricity consumers - Exemption from network charges in respect of the 2012-2013 period - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and unlawful, and ordering the recovery of the aid paid - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Concept of aid - State resources)
(2021/C 471/57)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant in Case T-233/19: Infineon Technologies Dresden GmbH & Co. KG (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: L. Assmann and M. Peiffer, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-234/19: Infineon Technologies AG (Neubiberg, Germany) (represented by: L. Assmann and M. Peiffer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: D. Klebs, J. Möller, R. Kanitz, S. Heimerl and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/56 of 28 May 2018 on aid scheme SA.34045 (2013/c) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for baseload consumers under Paragraph 19 StromNEV (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders Infineon Technologies Dresden GmbH & Co. KG and Infineon Technologies AG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Case T-15/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — OCU v ECB (Access to documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — Documents relating to the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information that is protected as such under EU law — Concept of confidential information — Exemptions from the obligation of professional secrecy — Right to a fair hearing)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, access to EU information, bank, bank resolution, company in difficulties, confidentiality, professional secret, rights of the defence








C_2021490EN.01002701.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/27






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — OCU v ECB
(Case T-15/18) (1)

(Access to documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - Documents relating to the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information that is protected as such under EU law - Concept of confidential information - Exemptions from the obligation of professional secrecy - Right to a fair hearing)
(2021/C 490/28)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios (OCU) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Martínez Martínez and C. López-Mélida de Ramón, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: T. Filipova, D. Báez Seara and F. von Lindeiner, acting as Agents, and M. Kottmann, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, J. Rius, C. Ehrbar and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents), Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo and A. Rodríguez Conde, lawyers)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Decision LS/MD/17/428 of the ECB of 17 November 2017 refusing access to certain documents relating to the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders the Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios (OCU) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB);










3.


Orders the European Commission and Banco Santander, SA to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.
Case T-7/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Global Translation Solutions v Parliament (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Translation services — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Award criteria — Format in which a file submitted in a test is to be uploaded)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, services contract, tendering, translation








C_2021471EN.01004401.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/44






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Global Translation Solutions v Parliament
(Case T-7/20) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Translation services - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Award criteria - Format in which a file submitted in a test is to be uploaded)
(2021/C 471/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Global Translation Solutions ltd. (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: C. Mifsud-Bonnici, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and K. Wójcik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision contained in the Parliament’s letter of 28 October 2019 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant for Lot 15 in tendering procedure TRA/EU19/2019 and of the decision contained in the Parliament’s letter of 4 December 2019 awarding the contract to another tenderer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Global Translation Solutions ltd. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Case C-272/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Sebastian Veit v European Central Bank (ECB) (Appeal — Civil service — European Central Bank (ECB) staff members — Remuneration — Competitions — Equality of treatment between internal and external candidates — Classification in step)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, competition (EU), equal treatment, pay scale, remuneration of work








C_2021490EN.01001101.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/11






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Sebastian Veit v European Central Bank (ECB)
(Case C-272/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - European Central Bank (ECB) staff members - Remuneration - Competitions - Equality of treatment between internal and external candidates - Classification in step)
(2021/C 490/09)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Sebastian Veit (represented by: K. Kujath, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and M. Rötting, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Mr Sebastian Veit to pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the European Central Bank.






(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.
Case C-620/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 October 2021 — Momtrade Ruse OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, economic activity, firm governed by commercial law, foreign national, provision of services, registration of a company, social services, tax exemption








C_2022024EN.01001701.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 October 2021 — Momtrade Ruse OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
(Case C-620/21)
(2022/C 24/22)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in cassation and respondent in the cross-appeal: Momtrade Ruse OOD

Respondent in cassation and appellant in the cross-appeal: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Questions referred







1.


Can Article 132(1)(g) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that it allows a commercial company registered as a social service provider in one Member State (in this case, Bulgaria) to rely on that provision in order to obtain a tax exemption for the social services which it provides in the territory of other Member States to private individuals who are nationals of those States? Is the answer to that question affected by the fact that the recipients of the services were referred to the provider by commercial companies registered in the Member States in which the services are provided?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, by what criteria and law (Bulgarian and/or Austrian and German law) is it necessary to assess, for the purposes of the interpretation and application of the aforesaid provision of EU law, whether the company audited is an organisation ‘recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing’ and whether it has been proven that the services are ‘closely linked to welfare and social security work’?










3.


Based on that interpretation, does the fact that a commercial company is registered as a provider of social services, as defined by national law, suffice in order for that company to be classed as an organisation ‘recognised by the Member State concerned as being devoted to social wellbeing’?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10430 – TOWERBROOK / BRUNEAU GROUP) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 472/05
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: catering industry, economic concentration, electronic commerce, furniture industry, investment company, merger control, office supplies, packaging, polishing and scouring preparations








C_2021472EN.01000501.xml










23.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 472/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10430 – TOWERBROOK / BRUNEAU GROUP)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 472/05)
On 6 October 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 policy’ 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 32021M10430. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.