do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-724/20: Order of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Senseon Tech v EUIPO — Accuride International (SENSEON)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, information security, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2022119EN.01005802.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/58






Order of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Senseon Tech v EUIPO — Accuride International (SENSEON)
(Case T-724/20) (1)

(2022/C 119/83)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.
Case T-369/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 –EFFAS v EUIPO — CFA Institute (CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst — Earlier EU word mark CFA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, assessment, consultancy, education, electronic publishing, registered trade mark, service, trade-mark law








C_2022095EN.01002901.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/29






Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 –EFFAS v EUIPO — CFA Institute (CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst)
(Case T-369/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst - Earlier EU word mark CFA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 95/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Federation of Financial Analysts’ Societies (EFFAS) (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: S. Merico, G. Macías Bonilla and F. Miazzetto, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States) (represented by: G. Engels and W. May, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 March 2020 (Case R 1082/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between CFA Institute and EFFAS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 31 March 2020 (R 1082/2019-5);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by European Federation of Financial Analysts’ Societies (EFFAS);










3.


Orders CFA Institute to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.
Case T-571/20: Order of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Luna Italia v EUIPO — Luna (LUNA SPLENDIDA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark LUNA SPLENDIDA — Earlier EU figurative mark Luna — Relative ground for refusal — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, sports equipment, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2022119EN.01004301.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/43






Order of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Luna Italia v EUIPO — Luna (LUNA SPLENDIDA)
(Case T-571/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark LUNA SPLENDIDA - Earlier EU figurative mark Luna - Relative ground for refusal - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2022/C 119/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Luna Italia Srl (Cantù, Italy) (represented by: N. Papakostas, 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 intervening before the General Court: Luna AE (Agios Stefanos, Greece) (represented by: M. Sioufas, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2020 (Case R 1895/2019 5), concerning invalidity proceedings between Luna and Luna Italia.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










2.


Luna Italia Srl is ordered to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Luna AE.






(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.
Case T-573/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — MG v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Remuneration — Family allowances — Refusal to grant allowances to non-custodial parent — Conciliation procedure — Reasonable time — Liability)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, child, dependant, family benefit, family relationship, indemnification, parental authority, pay








C_2022084EN.01003801.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/38






Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — MG v EIB
(Case T-573/20) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Remuneration - Family allowances - Refusal to grant allowances to non-custodial parent - Conciliation procedure - Reasonable time - Liability)
(2022/C 84/53)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: MG (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the EIB’s letters of 11 October 2018, 7 January 2019 and 30 July 2020 on the basis of which the applicant was deprived of the entitlement of family allowances and derived financial rights and, second, compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Orders the European Investment Bank (EIB) to pay the sum of EUR 500 to MG in respect of the non-material damage suffered;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders MG and the EIB to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.
Case T-787/21: Action brought on 21 December 2021 — UniSkin v EUIPO — Unicskin (UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, electronic commerce, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2022073EN.01005701.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/57






Action brought on 21 December 2021 — UniSkin v EUIPO — Unicskin (UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild)
(Case T-787/21)
(2022/C 73/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: UniSkin ApS (Silkeborg, Denmark) (represented by: M. Hoffgaard Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Unicskin, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild — Application for registration No 18 153 435

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2021 in Case R 771/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and, subsequently, reject the opposition against the trade mark in its entirety;





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-815/21 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2021 by Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Services LLC, Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Europe Core Sàrl against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 October 2021 in Case T-19/21, Amazon.com and Others v Commission
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, Italy, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, electronic commerce








C_2022084EN.01003102.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/31






Appeal brought on 21 December 2021 by Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Services LLC, Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Europe Core Sàrl against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 October 2021 in Case T-19/21, Amazon.com and Others v Commission
(Case C-815/21 P)
(2022/C 84/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Services LLC, Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Europe Core Sàrl (represented by: A. Komninos, dikigoros, G. Tantulli, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the order under appeal;










—


dismiss the plea of inadmissibility in its entirety;










—


refer the case back to the General Court in order for the latter to examine the substance of the Application.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants claim that the order under appeal infringed Article 263 TFEU by concluding that the measure contested in the Application did not produce legal effects. Such infringement is the result of an erroneous interpretation of Article 11(6) of Regulation 1/2003 (1), which accords undertakings legal protection from parallel antitrust proceedings as between the Commission and national competition authorities. The order under appeal failed to recognize that the contested measure deprived Amazon of that protection.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1).
Case C-874/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — Aeris Invest Sàrl v Single Resolution Board (SRB) (Appeal — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Board (SRB) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA — Sale of business tool — Write-down and conversion of capital instruments — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Article 20 — Concept of ‘definitive valuation’ — Consequences — Refusal or failure to proceed with an ex post definitive valuation — Remedies — Action for annulment)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, bank resolution, company in difficulties, ownership, sale








C_2022084EN.01000601.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/6






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — Aeris Invest Sàrl v Single Resolution Board (SRB)
(Case C-874/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Board (SRB) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA - Sale of business tool - Write-down and conversion of capital instruments - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Article 20 - Concept of ‘definitive valuation’ - Consequences - Refusal or failure to proceed with an ex post definitive valuation - Remedies - Action for annulment)
(2022/C 84/06)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (represented: initially by R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, abogados, and subsequently by R. Vallina Hoset, E. Galán Burgos and M. Varela Suárez, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: J. King, L. Pogarcic Mataija and E. Muratori, acting as Agents, F. Louis and G. Barthet, avocats, and H. G. Kamann and L. Hesse, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Aeris Invest Sàrl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Case T-189/17: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — EKETA v Commission (Arbitration clause — Humabio contract concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme — Eligible costs — Debit note issued by the Commission for the recovery of amounts advanced — Reliability of the time records — Conflict of interests)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, Framework Programme for Research and Development, arbitration clause, conflict of interest, debt, expenditure, financial aid, reimbursement of aid








C_2022095EN.01002301.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/23






Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — EKETA v Commission
(Case T-189/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Humabio contract concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme - Eligible costs - Debit note issued by the Commission for the recovery of amounts advanced - Reliability of the time records - Conflict of interests)
(2022/C 95/29)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou, O. Verheecke, T. Adamopoulos and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration, first, that the request made to the applicant by the Commission in debit note No 3241615288 of 29 November 2016 to reimburse to it the sum of EUR 64 720,19 of the payment received for a study on a research project called Humabio is, in the amount of EUR 10 436,36, unfounded, and, second, that the sum in dispute corresponds to eligible costs which the applicant is not required to reimburse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10372 – SHV Energy/UGI International Holding/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 69/02
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: carbon, economic concentration, energy distribution, fuel, joint venture, merger control, organic chemical, provision of services, renewable energy, subsidiary








C_2022069EN.01000201.xml










10.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 69/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10372 – SHV Energy/UGI International Holding/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 69/02)
On 21 December 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 32021M10372. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-703/19: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — DD v FRA (Action for damages — Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Initiation of an administrative inquiry — Article 86(2) of the Staff Regulations — Duty to provide information — Duration of the procedure — Reasonable time — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Confidentiality of the administrative inquiry — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Non-material damage — Causal link)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative procedure, confidentiality, damages, disciplinary proceedings, disclosure of information, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2022095EN.01002501.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/25






Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — DD v FRA
(Case T-703/19) (1)

(Action for damages - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Initiation of an administrative inquiry - Article 86(2) of the Staff Regulations - Duty to provide information - Duration of the procedure - Reasonable time - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Confidentiality of the administrative inquiry - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Non-material damage - Causal link)
(2022/C 95/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: DD (represented: initially by L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers, and subsequently by L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: M. O’Flaherty, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, in essence, compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant estimated ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000 as a result of the initiation and conduct of an administrative procedure within FRA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders DD to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).






(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.
Case T-195/21: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Klymenko v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of the persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2022095EN.01003401.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/34






Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Klymenko v Council
(Case T-195/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of the persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection)
(2022/C 95/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Phelippeau, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Lejeune and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2021 L 77, p. 29), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2021 L 77, p. 2), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;










2.


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.
Case T-194/21: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Stelis Biopharma (HYALOSTEL ONE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International figurative registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark HYALOSTEL ONE — Earlier EU word mark HYALISTIL and earlier figurative mark HyalOne — Earlier international word mark HYALO — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022095EN.01003301.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/33






Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Stelis Biopharma (HYALOSTEL ONE)
(Case T-194/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International figurative registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark HYALOSTEL ONE - Earlier EU word mark HYALISTIL and earlier figurative mark HyalOne - Earlier international word mark HYALO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)
(2022/C 95/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H.P. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Stelis Biopharma Ltd (Karnataka, India)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 January 2021 (Case R 831/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Fidia Farmaceutici and Stelis Biopharma.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 January 2021 (Case R 831/2020-5);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Fidia farmaceutici SpA in connection with the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.