do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-12/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 –Schneider v EUIPO — Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas (Frutaria) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative trade mark Frutaria — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use — Nature of use)
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dried product, export, fresh fruit, fresh vegetable, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021490EN.01003301.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/33






Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 –Schneider v EUIPO — Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas (Frutaria)
(Case T-12/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative trade mark Frutaria - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use - Nature of use)
(2021/C 490/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Markus Schneider (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: M. Bergermann and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

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 Court: Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas, SL (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: J. Learte Álvarez and C. Anadón Giménez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2019 (Case R 284/2019-1), relating to revocation proceedings between M. Schneider and Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Markus Schneider to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Case C-375/20: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra — Portugal) — Liberty Seguros, Compañia de Seguros y Reaseguros, SA — Sucursal em Portugal, formerly Liberty Seguros SA v DR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Obligatory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2009/103/EC — Insurance contract concluded on the basis of false statements — International transport of persons and goods without authorisation — Nullity of the insurance contract — Invoking that nullity against third-party victims and the body responsible for compensating victims)
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of passengers, compulsory insurance, indemnification, insurance contract, international transport, motor vehicle insurance, third-party insurance, transport licence, victim








C_2022064EN.01000201.xml










7.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/2






Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra — Portugal) — Liberty Seguros, Compañia de Seguros y Reaseguros, SA — Sucursal em Portugal, formerly Liberty Seguros SA v DR
(Case C-375/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Obligatory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Insurance contract concluded on the basis of false statements - International transport of persons and goods without authorisation - Nullity of the insurance contract - Invoking that nullity against third-party victims and the body responsible for compensating victims)
(2022/C 64/02)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Liberty Seguros, Compañia de Seguros y Reaseguros, SA — Sucursal em Portugal, formerly Liberty Seguros SA

Defendant: DR

Interveners: Fundo de Garantia Automóvel, VS, FN, JT, Seguradoras Unidas SA

Operative part of the order

The first paragraph of Article 3 and Article 13(1) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which would have the effect of making it possible to invoke against third parties who are victims of a motor vehicle accident the nullity of a contract for motor vehicle insurance against civil liability that arises as a result of the policyholder conducting a commercial activity of international transport without authorisation and of the omissions or false statements of that person with regard to the insurance company at the time that contract was concluded, even though the third-party victims are passengers who could not have been unaware of that lack of authorisation.


(1)  OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.
Case T-712/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Škoda Investment v EUIPO — Škoda Auto (Representation of an arrow with wing) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing an arrow with wing — Earlier EU figurative mark representing an arrow with wing — Relative ground for refusal — Partial rejection of the opposition — Limited scope of the opposition in the context of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Partial withdrawal of the opposition — Plea raised by the Board of Appeal of its own motion — Prohibition on ruling ultra petita)
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, insurance, maintenance, motor vehicle industry, organisation of transport, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2021490EN.01004002.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/40






Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Škoda Investment v EUIPO — Škoda Auto (Representation of an arrow with wing)
(Case T-712/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing an arrow with wing - Earlier EU figurative mark representing an arrow with wing - Relative ground for refusal - Partial rejection of the opposition - Limited scope of the opposition in the context of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Partial withdrawal of the opposition - Plea raised by the Board of Appeal of its own motion - Prohibition on ruling ultra petita)
(2021/C 490/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Škoda Investment a.s. (Plzeň, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, 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: Škoda Auto a.s. (Mladá Boleslav, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Fesenmair, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2020 (Case R 284/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Škoda Investment and Škoda Auto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Škoda Investment a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Škoda Auto a.s. in the proceedings before the General Court.






(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
Case T-436/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Sedus Stoll v EUIPO — Kappes (Sedus ergo+) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Sedus ergo+ — Earlier national and international word marks ERGOPLUS — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, furniture industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021490EN.01003801.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/38






Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Sedus Stoll v EUIPO — Kappes (Sedus ergo+)
(Case T-436/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Sedus ergo+ - Earlier national and international word marks ERGOPLUS - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 490/43)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Sedus Stoll AG (Dogern, Germany) (represented by: M. Goldmann and J. Thomsen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, D. Hanf and M. Eberl, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wolfgang Kappes (Bochum, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneiders, N. Gottschalk and B. Schneiders, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2020 (Case R 2194/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Kappes and Sedus Stoll.

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 12 March 2020 (Case R 2194/2018-1);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sedus Stoll AG for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court;










4.


Orders Wolfgang Kappes to bear his own costs and to pay the expenses necessarily incurred by Sedus Stoll for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.






(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Case T-153/19: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance ‘copper compounds’ — Renewal of approval for placing on the market — Candidates for substitution — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Associations — Proportionality — Precautionary principle — Manifest error of assessment — Expert’s report)
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical compound, copper, dangerous substance, market approval, plant health product, precautionary principle, principle of proportionality








C_2021490EN.01003001.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/30






Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission
(Case T-153/19) (1)

(Plant protection products - Active substance ‘copper compounds’ - Renewal of approval for placing on the market - Candidates for substitution - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Associations - Proportionality - Precautionary principle - Manifest error of assessment - Expert’s report)
(2021/C 490/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Union Copper Task Force (Springfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas and C. Vila Gisbert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Stefani, C. Ionescu Dima and A. Tamás, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: D. Kornilaki and E. Karlsson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1981 of 13 December 2018 renewing the approval of the active substances copper compounds, as candidates for substitution, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2018 L 317, p. 16).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders European Union Copper Task Force to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10184 – CHANNEL 5 / BBC / ITV / CHANNEL 4 / DIGITAL UK) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 463/04
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: broadcasting, economic concentration, merger control, telecommunications, telecommunications industry








C_2021463EN.01000401.xml










16.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10184 – CHANNEL 5 / BBC / ITV / CHANNEL 4 / DIGITAL UK)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 463/04)
On 13 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 32021M10184. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-646/16 P-RENV-RX: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Simpson v Council (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Refusal of the Council to reclassify the person concerned, after he passed an open competition, at the grade laid down in the competition notice — Dismissal of the action on the merits — Appeal — Judgment set aside — Appeal judgment reviewed by the Court of Justice and set aside — Referral back to the General Court as the appeal court — Obligation to state grounds — Equal treatment)
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), equal treatment, pay scale, promotion








C_2021490EN.01002601.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/26






Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Simpson v Council
(Case T-646/16 P-RENV-RX) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Refusal of the Council to reclassify the person concerned, after he passed an open competition, at the grade laid down in the competition notice - Dismissal of the action on the merits - Appeal - Judgment set aside - Appeal judgment reviewed by the Court of Justice and set aside - Referral back to the General Court as the appeal court - Obligation to state grounds - Equal treatment)
(2021/C 490/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2016, Simpson v Council (F-142/11 RENV, EU:F:2016:136), and seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Declares that Mr Erik Simpson is to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case T-646/16 P;










3.


Declares that each party is to bear its own costs in Cases T-441/18 RENV and T-646/16 P-RENV-RX.






(1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.
Case T-591/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Unimax Stationery v EUIPO — Mitsubishi Pencil (UNI-MAX) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark UNI-MAX — Earlier EU figurative marks uni and uni-ball — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, office equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021490EN.01003902.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/39






Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Unimax Stationery v EUIPO — Mitsubishi Pencil (UNI-MAX)
(Case T-591/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark UNI-MAX - Earlier EU figurative marks uni and uni-ball - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 490/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Unimax Stationery (Daman, India) (represented by: A. Hempel and C. Grünewald, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mitsubishi Pencil Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. Fesenmair, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 July 2020 (Case R 371/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mitsubishi Pencil and Unimax Stationery.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Unimax Stationery to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10487 — CDPQ/Investcorp/ICR) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 414/05
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: communications policy, consultancy, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2021414EN.01000601.xml










13.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10487 — CDPQ/Investcorp/ICR)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 414/05)

1.   
On 1 October 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:






—


Caisse de dépôt et placement de Québec (‘CDPQ’, Canada),










—


Investcorp Holdings B.S.C. (‘Investcorp’, Kingdom of Bahrain),










—


ICR OPCO, LLC (‘ICR’, USA).




CDPQ and Investcorp acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of ICR.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of securities.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for CDPQ: long-term institutional investor managing funds primarily for public and parapublic pension and insurance plans. It invests these funds globally in major financial markets, private equity, infrastructure, and real estate,










—


for Investcorp: international financial institution acting as a principal and as an intermediary in international investment transactions,










—


for ICR: strategic communication and advise, specialized in investor relations, public relations, crisis and special situations communications, digital branding, and capital advisory solutions.






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.10487 — CDPQ/Investcorp/ICR
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-219/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — JK v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Commission staff working for the EEAS — Request for assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Implied decision rejecting the request — Decision rejecting the complaint — Article 90 of the Staff Regulations — Competent Appointing Authority — Principle of sound administration)
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU office or agency, European External Action Service, harassment at work, psychological harassment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021490EN.01003701.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/37






Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — JK v Commission
(Case T-219/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Commission staff working for the EEAS - Request for assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Implied decision rejecting the request - Decision rejecting the complaint - Article 90 of the Staff Regulations - Competent Appointing Authority - Principle of sound administration)
(2021/C 490/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: JK (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and T. Lilamand, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s implied decision of 5 June 2019 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance brought under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of its decision of 6 January 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the implied decision of the European Commission of 5 June 2019 rejecting JK’s request for assistance brought under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and its decision of 6 January 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;










2.


Orders the Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by JK.






(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.