do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2004 of 10 November 2021 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Vänerlöjrom’ (PDO))
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Sweden, Västra Götaland county, designation of origin, fish product, fresh product, frozen product, labelling, product designation








L_2021407EN.01000901.xml










17.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 407/9








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/2004
of 10 November 2021
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Vänerlöjrom’ (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Sweden’s application to register the name ‘Vänerlöjrom’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Vänerlöjrom’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Vänerlöjrom’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.7. – Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 November 2021.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 288, 19.7.2021, p. 15.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case T-248/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Pfizer (RUXYMLA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark RUXYMLA — Earlier EU word mark RUXIMERA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, dissemination of information, medical device, pharmaceutical product, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2022002EN.01003002.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/30






Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Pfizer (RUXYMLA)
(Case T-248/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark RUXYMLA - Earlier EU word mark RUXIMERA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 2/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2020 (Case R 1878/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pfizer and Stada Arzneimittel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Stada Arzneimittel AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.
Case T-495/19: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Romania v Commission (Law governing the institutions — European citizen’s initiative — Cohesion policy — National minority regions — Registration decision — Action for annulment — Actionable measure — Admissibility — Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European citizens' initiative, cultural pluralism, economic and social cohesion, legal basis, national minority, petition, proposal (EU), regional culture, regional development








C_2022011EN.01002202.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/22






Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Romania v Commission
(Case T-495/19) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - European citizen’s initiative - Cohesion policy - National minority regions - Registration decision - Action for annulment - Actionable measure - Admissibility - Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Obligation to state reasons)
(2022/C 11/29)
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Applicant: Romania (represented by: E. Gane, R. Haţieganu, L. Liţu and L.-E. Baţagoi, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Stancu, I. Martínez del Peral and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, M. Tátrai and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/721 of 30 April 2019 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Cohesion policy for the equality of the regions and sustainability of the regional cultures’ (OJ 2019 L 122, p. 55).

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Romania to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Case T-602/15 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Jenkinson v Council and Others (Arbitration clause — International civilian staff of EU international missions — Recruitment on a contractual basis — Consecutive fixed-term contracts — Claim that all the contractual relationships should be recategorised as a ‘contract of indefinite duration’ — Action for contractual liability — Action for non-contractual liability)
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU military mission, European External Action Service, Kosovo, access to the courts, arbitration clause, full-time employment, temporary employment, unfair dismissal, work contract








C_2022011EN.01002201.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/22






Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Jenkinson v Council and Others
(Case T-602/15 RENV) (1)

(Arbitration clause - International civilian staff of EU international missions - Recruitment on a contractual basis - Consecutive fixed-term contracts - Claim that all the contractual relationships should be recategorised as a ‘contract of indefinite duration’ - Action for contractual liability - Action for non-contractual liability)
(2022/C 11/28)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Liam Jenkinson (Killarney, Ireland) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, D. Bianchi and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents), European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt, R. Spáč and E. Orgován, acting as Agents), Eulex Kosovo (Pristina, Kosovo) (represented by: E. Raoult, lawyer)

Re:

Principally, first, an application pursuant to Article 272 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, to have all of the applicant’s employment contracts recategorised as an employment contract of indeterminate duration and, on the other hand, to obtain compensation for the contractual loss that the applicant claims to have suffered as a result and, second, applications under Articles 268 and 340 TFEU seeking to establish the non-contractual liability of the Council, the Commission, the EEAS and the Eulex Kosovo Mission.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the Eulex Kosovo Mission to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant relating to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice, in Case C-43/17 P, and relating to the initial proceedings before the General Court, in Case T-602/15, as of the point at which they respectively raised objections of inadmissibility by separate documents in Case T-602/15;










3.


Orders Liam Jenkinson to bear the costs of the proceedings referred back to the General Court, in Case T-602/15 RENV, including those relating to the lodging of the application and to pay those incurred by the defendants in connection with those proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
Joined Cases T-758/20 and T-759/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Frito-Lay Trading Company (MONSTER and MONSTER ENERGY) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word marks MONSTER and MONSTER ENERGY — Genuine use of the marks — Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the marks were registered — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, coffee, milk, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022011EN.01002602.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/26






Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Frito-Lay Trading Company (MONSTER and MONSTER ENERGY)
(Joined Cases T-758/20 and T-759/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word marks MONSTER and MONSTER ENERGY - Genuine use of the marks - Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the marks were registered - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 11/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Monster Energy Co. (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Frito-Lay Trading Company GmbH (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2020 (Cases R 2927/2019-2 and R 2928/2019-2), relating to two revocation proceedings between Frito-Lay Trading Company and Monster Energy.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders Monster Energy Co. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Case T-532/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Phi Group v EUIPO — Gruppo Cadoro (REDELLO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark REDELLO — Earlier EU figurative mark CADELLO 88 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcohol, liqueur, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022011EN.01002501.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/25






Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Phi Group v EUIPO — Gruppo Cadoro (REDELLO)
(Case T-532/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark REDELLO - Earlier EU figurative mark CADELLO 88 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 11/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Phi Group GmbH (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Campolini and L. Bidaine, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, V. Ruzek, and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gruppo Cadoro GmbH (Eglisau, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2020 (Case R 2677/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Gruppo Cadoro and Phi Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Phi Group GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.
Case T-726/21: Action brought on 10 November 2021 — Rolex v EUIPO — PWT (Device of a crown)
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022011EN.01003701.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/37






Action brought on 10 November 2021 — Rolex v EUIPO — PWT (Device of a crown)
(Case T-726/21)
(2022/C 11/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rolex SA (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PWT A/S (Aalborg, Denmark)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark (Representation of a crown) — International registration designating the European Union No 1 263 679

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 August 2021 in Case R 2389/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs, or in the alternative (if the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes) that EUIPO and the other party do severally and jointly pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-679/21 P: Appeal brought on 10 November 2021 by Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 1 September 2021 in Case T-561/20, Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, audio cassette, magnetic medium, optical medium, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, video cassette








C_2022148EN.01001002.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/10






Appeal brought on 10 November 2021 by Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 1 September 2021 in Case T-561/20, Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO

(Case C-679/21 P)
(2022/C 148/15)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (represented by: S. Malynicz, BL)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 22 February 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd shall bear its own costs.
Case T-518/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — VF International v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC — Earlier non-registered mark GEOGRAPHIC — Relative ground for refusal — Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022024EN.01003101.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/31






Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — VF International v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC)
(Case T-518/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC - Earlier non-registered mark GEOGRAPHIC - Relative ground for refusal - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 24/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland) (represented by: T. van Innis and A. Van der Planken, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: National Geographic Society (Washington, District of Columbia, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, and C. de Haas, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2020 (Case R 1664/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between VF International and National Geographic Society.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders VF International Sagl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.
Case T-239/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Pfizer (RUXXIMLA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark RUXXIMLA — Earlier EU word mark RUXIMERA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, dissemination of information, medical device, pharmaceutical product, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2022002EN.01003001.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/30






Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Pfizer (RUXXIMLA)
(Case T-239/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark RUXXIMLA - Earlier EU word mark RUXIMERA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 2/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2020 (Case R 1879/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pfizer and Stada Arzneimittel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Stada Arzneimittel AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 209, 20.6.2020.
Case T-218/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Alkattan v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to a fair trial — Error of assessment — Determination of listing criteria)
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, damages, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2022011EN.01002402.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/24






Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Alkattan v Council
(Case T-218/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to a fair trial - Error of assessment - Determination of listing criteria)
(2022/C 11/32)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Waseem Alkattan (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Limonet and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 431, p. 6), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 431, p. 1), Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 66), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 1), Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/855 of 27 May 2021 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2021 L 188, p. 90), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/848 of 27 May 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2021 L 188, p. 18), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and, secondly, application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of those measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Waseem Alkattan to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.