do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-47/22: Action brought on 26 January 2022 — DDR Kultur v EUIPO — Groupe Canal+ (THE PLANET)
Date: 2022-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, cultural event, publishing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022128EN.01002701.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/27






Action brought on 26 January 2022 — DDR Kultur v EUIPO — Groupe Canal+ (THE PLANET)
(Case T-47/22)
(2022/C 128/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: DDR Kultur UG (haftungsbeschränkt) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Yeboah, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupe Canal+ (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France)

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 THE PLANET — Application for registration No 18 096 394

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2021 in Case R 2385/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-498/20: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Diego v EUIPO — Forbo Financial Services (WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING — Earlier international word mark STEP — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Free movement of goods)
Date: 2022-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building, carpet, floor coverings, maintenance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022128EN.01002001.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/20






Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Diego v EUIPO — Forbo Financial Services (WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING)
(Case T-498/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING - Earlier international word mark STEP - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Free movement of goods)
(2022/C 128/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Diego Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (Dabas, Hungary) (represented by: P. Jalsovszky, lawyer)

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: Forbo Financial Services AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Kramer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2020 (Case R 1630/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Forbo Financial Services and Diego Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Diego Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.
Commission Decision (EU) 2022/119 of 26 January 2022 repealing Decision 2004/613/EC concerning the creation of an advisory group on the food chain and animal and plant health
Date: 2022-01-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: advisory committee (EU), consumer protection, crop production, food safety, foodstuffs legislation, labelling








L_2022019EN.01007101.xml










28.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 19/71








            COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2022/119
of 26 January 2022
         
repealing Decision 2004/613/EC concerning the creation of an advisory group on the food chain and animal and plant health


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Decision 2004/613/EC (1) established the advisory group on the food chain and animal and plant health. This group has been consulted by the Commission on its work programme on food and feed safety, food and feed labelling and presentation, human nutrition in relation to food legislation, animal health and welfare, and plant health as well as on any measure which the Commission had to take or propose in the above policy areas.












(2)


On 20 May 2020, the Commission adopted the Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system (2).












(3)


In the implementation of the Farm to Fork Strategy, consultations are to be made with stakeholders having expertise in health, nutrition, marketing, environment, climate, sustainable agriculture, agronomy, fisheries, aquaculture and social sciences areas, as well as digital transformation and finance areas pertaining to food systems.












(4)


Hence, the issues relating to the implementation of the Farm to Fork Strategy go beyond the expertise of the group as currently provided for in Decision 2004/613/EC. Therefore, to ensure an enlarged expert participation in those policy areas, it is necessary to set up a new informal expert group with enlarged membership and tasks.












(5)


In light of the above, it is necessary to repeal Decision 2004/613/EC.












(6)


As the mandate of the members of the current advisory group expires on 14 July 2022, this Decision should apply from the following day,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Decision 2004/613/EC is repealed.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day after that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 15 July 2022.




Done at Brussels, 26 January 2022.


For the Commission


The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN
            





(1)  Commission Decision 2004/613/EC of 6 August 2004 concerning the creation of an advisory group on the food chain and animal and plant health (OJ L 275, 25.8.2004, p. 17).

(2)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system (COM/2020/381 final).
Case T-849/19: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Leonardo v Frontex (Public supply contracts — Tendering procedure — Aerial surveillance services — Action for annulment — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2022-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: admissibility, air traffic control, award of contract, drone, invitation to tender, liability, maritime surveillance, public procurement, services contract, tendering








C_2022128EN.01001901.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/19






Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Leonardo v Frontex
(Case T-849/19) (1)

(Public supply contracts - Tendering procedure - Aerial surveillance services - Action for annulment - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility - Non-contractual liability)
(2022/C 128/26)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Leonardo SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Esposito, F. Caccioppoli and G. Calamo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) (represented by: H. Caniard, C. Georgiadis, A. Gras and S. Drew, acting as Agents, and by M. Umbach, F. Biebuyck, V. Ost and M. Clarich, lawyers)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the contract notice FRONTEX/OP/888/2019/JL/CG of 18 October 2019 entitled ‘Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) for Medium Altitude Long Endurance Maritime Aerial Surveillance’, as amended, of the documents included in the annex thereto, of the questions and answers published by Frontex, of the minutes of the Information Meeting held at Frontex’s premises on 28 October 2019, of the decision awarding that contract and of any other prior, associated or subsequent act, and, secondly, application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Leonardo SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Case T-586/20: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — MN v Europol (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract for an indefinite period — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2022-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, full-time employment, servant (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment, work contract








C_2022119EN.01003601.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/36






Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — MN v Europol
(Case T-586/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract for an indefinite period - Manifest error of assessment)
(2022/C 119/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: MN (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) (represented by: A. Nunzi, O. Sajin and C. Falmagne, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of Europol’s decision of 6 March 2020 not to renew the applicant’s employment contract for an indefinite period and, second, compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders MN to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Case T-300/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — CNH Industrial v EUIPO (SOILXPLORER) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark SOILXPLORER — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, agricultural implement, electronic component, registered trade mark, soil analysis, soil conditioning, trade-mark law








C_2022119EN.01004002.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/40






Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — CNH Industrial v EUIPO (SOILXPLORER)
(Case T-300/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark SOILXPLORER - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 119/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: CNH Industrial NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Axel Karnøe Søndergaard, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2021 (Case R 386/2021-5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign SOILXPLORER as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders CNH Industrial NV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Trygderetten dated 26 January 2022 in the case of A v Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet (Case E-2/22) 2022/C 210/13
Date: 2022-01-26
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, early childhood, family benefit, social security legislation, wage earner








C_2022210EN.01003201.xml










25.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 210/32






Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Trygderetten dated 26 January 2022 in the case of A v Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet
(Case E-2/22)
(2022/C 210/13)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 26 January 2022 from Trygderetten (The National Insurance Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 27 January 2022, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of A v Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet on the following questions:






1)


Does a benefit such as the transitional benefit (overgangsstønad) – see the first paragraph of Section 15-5 of the National Insurance Act, read in conjunction with the first sentence of the second paragraph – come within the material scope of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) according to:






a.


Article 3(1), in particular (j), or










b.


Article 3(3), read in conjunction with Article 70?














2)


Is it of any significance for the assessment under question 1) that there is a requirement of occupational activity for continued entitlement to a benefit when the youngest child becomes one year old, see Section 15-6 of the National Insurance Act?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1).
Case T-301/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — CNH Industrial v EUIPO (CROPXPLORER) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark CROPXPLORER — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, agricultural implement, registered trade mark, software, soil analysis, soil conditioning, trade-mark law








C_2022119EN.01004101.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/41






Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — CNH Industrial v EUIPO (CROPXPLORER)
(Case T-301/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark CROPXPLORER - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 119/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: CNH Industrial NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Axel Karnøe Søndergaard, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2021 (Case R 387/2021-5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign CROPXPLORER as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders CNH Industrial NV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.
Case T-233/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Meta Cluster v EUIPO (Clustermedizin) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Clustermedizin — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, health service, nutritional needs, optical medium, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product, veterinary medicine








C_2022128EN.01002402.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/24






Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Meta Cluster v EUIPO (Clustermedizin)
(Case T-233/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Clustermedizin - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 128/35)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Meta Cluster GmbH (Pyrbaum, Germany) (represented by: H. Baumann, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2021 (Case R 2127/2020-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Clustermedizin as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Meta Cluster GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 25 January 2022 2022/C 39/01
Date: 2022-01-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022039EN.01000101.xml










26.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

25 January 2022
(2022/C 39/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1268 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,49 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4437 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83713 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5020 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0364 




ISK


Iceland króna


146,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1385 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,500 




HUF


Hungarian forint


359,44 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5751 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9448 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,2723 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5814 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4247 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7725 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6911 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5157 




KRW


South Korean won


1 350,71 




ZAR


South African rand


17,2669 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1325 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5295 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 169,54 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7213 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,753 




RUB


Russian rouble


88,7384 




THB


Thai baht


37,280 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,2049 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,2909 




INR


Indian rupee


84,2770 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10569 – KKR / GIP / CYRUSONE) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 40/02
Date: 2022-01-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: computer centre, economic concentration, energy industry, insurance, investment company, merger control, real estate business, transport infrastructure, waste management, water management








C_2022040EN.01001401.xml










26.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 40/14






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10569 – KKR / GIP / CYRUSONE)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 40/02)

1.   
On 12 January 2022, 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:






—


KKR & Co. Inc. (‘KKR’, USA);










—


Global Infrastructure Management, LLC (‘GIP’, USA);










—


CyrusOne, Inc. (‘CyrusOne’, USA).




KKR and GIP acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of CyrusOne.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for KKR: a global investment firm that offers alternative asset management and capital markets and insurance solutions..










—


for GIP: an independent infrastructure fund manager investing in and managing assets that are mainly in the transportation, energy, waste and water sectors.










—


for CyrusOne: a real estate investment trust (‘REIT’) that owns, operates and develops enterprise-class, carrier-neutral, multi-tenant and single-tenant data centre properties in the US and Europe.






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 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.10569 – KKR / GIP / CRUYSONE
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-303/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Mylan IRE Healthcare v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Orphan medicinal products — Marketing authorisations for the medicinal products Tobramycin VVB and associated names — Derogation from the market exclusivity of Tobi Podhaler, containing the active substance tobramycin — Article 8(3)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 — Concept of ‘significant benefit’ — Concept of ‘clinical superiority’ — Article 3(2) and (3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 — Duty of care — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2022-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, orphan drug








C_2022119EN.01003101.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/31






Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Mylan IRE Healthcare v Commission
(Case T-303/16) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Orphan medicinal products - Marketing authorisations for the medicinal products Tobramycin VVB and associated names - Derogation from the market exclusivity of Tobi Podhaler, containing the active substance tobramycin - Article 8(3)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 - Concept of ‘significant benefit’ - Concept of ‘clinical superiority’ - Article 3(2) and (3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 - Duty of care - Manifest error of assessment)
(2022/C 119/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mylan IRE Healthcare Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: I. Vernimme, M. Campolini and D. Gillet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: UAB VVB (Kaunas, Lithuania) (represented by: E. Rivas Alba, V. Horcajuelo Rivera and M. Martens, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 2083 final of 4 April 2016 concerning, in the framework of Article 29 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations for ‘Tobramycin VVB and associated names’, medicinal products for human use which contain the active substance ‘tobramycin’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mylan IRE Healthcare Ltd to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by UAB VVB, including those relating to procedure for the replacement of a party.






(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.