do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-756/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Nissan Motor v EUIPO — VDL Groep (VDL E-POWERED) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark VDL E-POWERED — Earlier national figurative marks e-POWER — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical equipment, engine, machine tool, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2022002EN.01003701.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/37






Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Nissan Motor v EUIPO — VDL Groep (VDL E-POWERED)
(Case T-756/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark VDL E-POWERED - Earlier national figurative marks e-POWER - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2022/C 2/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd (Yokohama-shi, Japan) (represented by: P. Martini-Berthon, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: VDL Groep BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Rijks, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2020 (Case R 2915/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nissan Motor and VDL Groep.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Nissan Motor Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and of VDL Groep BV.






(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Case T-353/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 –AC Milan v EUIPO — InterES (ACM 1899 AC MILAN) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark ACM 1899 AC MILAN — Earlier national word marks Milan — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No alteration of distinctive character)
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, office supplies, paper, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2022002EN.01003101.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/31






Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 –AC Milan v EUIPO — InterES (ACM 1899 AC MILAN)
(Case T-353/20) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark ACM 1899 AC MILAN - Earlier national word marks Milan - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No alteration of distinctive character)
(2022/C 2/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Associazione Calcio Milan SpA (AC Milan) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: InterES Handels- und Dienstleistungs Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2020 (Case R 161/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between InterES Handels- und Dienstleistungs Gesellschaft and AC Milan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Associazione Calcio Milan SpA (AC Milan) to pay the costs, with the exception of the travel expenses incurred by the latter;










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear the travel expenses incurred by AC Milan.






(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
Case T-755/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Nissan Motor v EUIPO — VDL Groep (VDL E-POWER) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark VDL E-POWER — Earlier national figurative marks e-POWER — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical equipment, engine, machine tool, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2022002EN.01003601.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/36






Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Nissan Motor v EUIPO — VDL Groep (VDL E-POWER)
(Case T-755/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark VDL E-POWER - Earlier national figurative marks e-POWER - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2022/C 2/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd (Yokohama-shi, Japan) (represented by: P. Martini-Berthon, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: VDL Groep BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Rijks, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2020 (Case R 2914/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nissan Motor and VDL Groep.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Nissan Motor Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and of VDL Groep BV.






(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Case T-73/21: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — PIK-KO v EUIPO — Haribo Ricqles Zan (P.I.C. Co.) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark P.I.C. Co. — Earlier national figurative mark PIK — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Declaration of partial invalidity)
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cereal product, confectionery, confectionery product, dairy ice cream, foodstuff, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2022011EN.01002701.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/27






Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — PIK-KO v EUIPO — Haribo Ricqles Zan (P.I.C. Co.)
(Case T-73/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark P.I.C. Co. - Earlier national figurative mark PIK - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Declaration of partial invalidity)
(2022/C 11/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: PIK-KO AD (Kazichene, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Haribo Ricqles Zan (Marseilles, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2020 (Case R 1847/2019-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Haribo Ricqles Zan and PIK-KO.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders PIK-KO AD to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10466 – GOLDMAN SACHS / ENEOS / NIPPO) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 463/06
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, building industry, economic concentration, energy industry, extraction of oil, gas industry, investment company, merger control, petroleum exploration, petroleum product








C_2021463EN.01000601.xml










16.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/6






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10466 – GOLDMAN SACHS / ENEOS / NIPPO)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 463/06)
On 10 November 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 32021M10466. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-500/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Selmikeit & Giczella v EUIPO — Boehmert & Boehmert (HALLOWIENER) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark HALLOWIENER — No genuine use — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, meat, prepared foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022002EN.01003202.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/32






Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Selmikeit & Giczella v EUIPO — Boehmert & Boehmert (HALLOWIENER)
(Case T-500/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark HALLOWIENER - No genuine use - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 2/43)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Selmikeit & Giczella GmbH (Osterode, Germany) (represented by: S. Keute, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Boehmert & Boehmert Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB — Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: U. Ulrich, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 May 2020 (Case R 1893/2019-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Boehmert & Boehmert Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB — Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte and Selmikeit & Giczella.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Selmikeit & Giczella GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10450 – CDP / MACQUARIE / OPEN FIBER) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 25/01
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, economic concentration, investment company, management, merger control, mobile communication, transmission network, wholesale trade








C_2022025EN.01000101.xml










18.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/1







Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10450 – CDP / MACQUARIE / OPEN FIBER)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 25/01)

On 10 November 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 32021M10450. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-41/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Di Bernado v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open competition — Conditions of admission — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Insufficient professional experience — Article 266 TFEU — Decision adopted to give effect to a judgment of the General Court — Measures necessary to give effect to a judgment delivered in an action for annulment — Article 2 of Annex III to the Statute — Equal treatment — Manifest error of assessment — Liability)
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: assistant, competition (EU), damages, equal treatment, professional experience, recruitment








C_2022011EN.01002401.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/24






Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Di Bernado v Commission
(Case T-41/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition - Conditions of admission - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Insufficient professional experience - Article 266 TFEU - Decision adopted to give effect to a judgment of the General Court - Measures necessary to give effect to a judgment delivered in an action for annulment - Article 2 of Annex III to the Statute - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Liability)
(2022/C 11/31)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Danilo Di Bernado (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the selection board in the open competition on the basis of tests EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 of 13 Mars 2019, taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 29 November 2018, Di Bernardo v Commission (T-811/16, not published, EU:T:2018:859), not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the recruitment of secretaries/clerks at grade SC 1 in the field of financial support and, secondly, compensation for the harm that the applicant claims to have suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Danilo di Bernardo to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Judgment of the Court of 10 November 2021 in Case E-17/20 Zvonimir Cogelja v the Directorate of Health (Embætti landlæknis), (Free movement of persons and services – Directive 2005/36/EC – Evidence of formal qualifications – Issuance of evidence – Competent authority) 2022/C 69/12
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, free movement of persons, freedom to provide services, medical specialisation, physician, professional qualifications, recognition of vocational training qualifications, vocational training








C_2022069EN.01001201.xml










10.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 69/12






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 10 November 2021
in Case E-17/20
Zvonimir Cogelja v the Directorate of Health (Embætti landlæknis),


(Free movement of persons and services – Directive 2005/36/EC – Evidence of formal qualifications – Issuance of evidence – Competent authority)


(2022/C 69/12)
In Case E-17/20, Zvonimir Cogelja v the Directorate of Health (Embætti landlæknis) – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Reykjavík District Court (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, and in particular Article 25, in conjunction with Articles 3(1)(c), 21 and 26 of that directive, as adapted to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 10 November 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:
In order for the competent authority of an EEA State to issue evidence of formal qualifications for specialist medical training in compliance with Article 25 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, it must be able to assess and confirm that the requirements for issuing the evidence of formal qualifications are fulfilled. This is possible if the EEA State offers specialist medical training that fulfils the minimum requirements under Directive 2005/36/EC within its own territory. Otherwise, that competent authority must have in place a system that secures the verification of compliance with the requirements laid down in Article 25 of Directive 2005/36/EC, for example by having in place a curriculum or its equivalent describing a comprehensive programme of education and training. If not, that competent authority may not issue such evidence of formal qualifications under Directive 2005/36/EC.
Case C-678/21 P: Appeal brought on 10 November 2021 by Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 1 September 2021 in Case T-463/20, Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022148EN.01001001.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 (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 1 September 2021 in Case T-463/20, Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO
(Case C-678/21 P)
(2022/C 148/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 24 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 C-674/21 P: Appeal brought on 10 November 2021 by Residencial Palladium, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 September 2021 in Case T-566/20, Residencial Palladium v EUIPO — Palladium Gestión (Palladium Hotel Garden Beach)
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022148EN.01000901.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/9






Appeal brought on 10 November 2021 by Residencial Palladium, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 September 2021 in Case T-566/20, Residencial Palladium v EUIPO — Palladium Gestión (Palladium Hotel Garden Beach)
(Case C-674/21 P)
(2022/C 148/12)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Residencial Palladium, S.L. (represented by: D. Solana Giménez, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Palladium Gestión, S.L.
By order of 22 February 2022, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) dismissed the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed and ordered Residencial Palladium, S.L. to bear its own costs.
Notice for the attention of a person subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine 2021/C 455/02
Date: 2021-11-10
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2021455EN.01000201.xml










10.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 455/2







Notice for the attention of a person subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine
(2021/C 455/02)

The following information is brought to the attention of Mr. Viktor Ivanovych Ratushniak who appears in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 (2) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine.
The Council has received information from the Ukrainian authorities that will be considered within the framework of the annual review of the restrictive measures. The above-mentioned person is hereby informed that he may submit a request to the Council to obtain the elements the Council holds in its file regarding his designation, before 30 November 2021, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu
In this regard, the attention of the person concerned is drawn to the regular review by the Council of the list of designated persons in Decision 2014/119/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 208/2014.


(1)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 26.

(2)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 1.