do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-192/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Beta Sports (META) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark META — Earlier national word mark METALGIAL — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, food supplement, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022171EN.01003401.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/34






Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Beta Sports (META)
(Case T-192/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark META - Earlier national word mark METALGIAL - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 171/44)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Beta Sports LLC (Coconut Creek, Florida, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2021 (Case R 1152/2020-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Beta Sports.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10654 – KKR / ACCELL GROUP) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 102/08
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, retail selling, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2022102EN.01001201.xml










2.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/12






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10654 – KKR / ACCELL GROUP)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 102/08)

1.   
On 22 February 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. (United States) (‘KKR’);










—


Accell Group N.V. (the Netherlands) (‘Accell Group’).




KKR will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Accell Group.
The concentration is accomplished by way of public bid announced on 24 January 2022.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned:






—


KKR is a global investment firm, offering alternative asset management and capital markets and insurances solutions,










—


Accell Group is a manufacturer and retailer of bicycles (including e-bikes), bicycle parts and accessories.






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.10654 – KKR / ACCELL GROUP
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 C-171/22 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by FJ and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-619/20, FJ and Others v EEAS
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, posted worker, remuneration of work, retroactivity of a law, wage determination








C_2022441EN.01000304.xml










21.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/3






Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by FJ and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-619/20, FJ and Others v EEAS
(Case C-171/22 P)
(2022/C 441/06)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: FJ and Others (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service
By order of 5 October 2022, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
Case T-556/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — D & A Pharma v Commission and EMA (Medicinal products for human use — Application for conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Hopveus — sodium oxybate — Decision of refusal by the Commission — Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 — Procedure — Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use — Request for consultation of a specific scientific advisory group — Impartiality of members of an ad hoc committee of experts — Manifest errors of assessment — Equal treatment)
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: alcoholism, drug surveillance, equal treatment, market approval, medicinal product








C_2022198EN.01003602.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/36






Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — D & A Pharma v Commission and EMA
(Case T-556/20) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Application for conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Hopveus — sodium oxybate - Decision of refusal by the Commission - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Procedure - Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use - Request for consultation of a specific scientific advisory group - Impartiality of members of an ad hoc committee of experts - Manifest errors of assessment - Equal treatment)
(2022/C 198/51)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Debregeas et associés Pharma (D & A Pharma) (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Viguié and D. Krzisch, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: G. Wils and A. Sipos, acting as Agents), European Medicines Agency (represented by: S. Marino, S. Drosos, C. Bortoluzzi and H. Kerr, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission’s Implementing Decision of 6 July 2020 refusing marketing authorisation for Hopveus — sodium oxybate, a medicinal product for human use, under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Debregeas et associés Pharma (D & A Pharma) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.
Case T-86/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Distintiva Solutions v EUIPO — Makeblock (Makeblock) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Makeblock — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Mark not of such a nature as to mislead the public — Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hoisting equipment, registered trade mark, robotics, teaching materials, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2022171EN.01003001.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/30






Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Distintiva Solutions v EUIPO — Makeblock (Makeblock)
(Case T-86/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Makeblock - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Mark not of such a nature as to mislead the public - Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2022/C 171/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Distintiva Solutions S. Coop. Pequeña (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) (represented by: M. Sanmartín, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Makeblock Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2020 (Case R 988/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Distintiva Solutions and Makeblock.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Distintiva Solutions S. Coop. Pequeña to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.
Case T-112/22: Action brought on 2 March 2022 — Svenska Bankföreningen and Länsförsäkringar Bank v Commission
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, Sweden, control of State aid, credit institution, equal treatment, tax








C_2022191EN.01003101.xml










10.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/31






Action brought on 2 March 2022 — Svenska Bankföreningen and Länsförsäkringar Bank v Commission
(Case T-112/22)
(2022/C 191/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Ideella föreningen Svenska Bankföreningen med firma Svenska Bankföreningen, Näringsverksamhet (Stockholm, Sweden), Länsförsäkringar Bank AB (Stockholm) (represented by: P. Hansson, M. Eriksson and M. Persson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision of 24 November 2021 in Case SA.56348(2021/N) — Sweden: Swedish tax on credit institutions; (1)











—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed the applicants’ procedural rights, in that it failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure.
It is argued that the Commission objectively faced serious difficulties during the preliminary examination of the notified measure and should have initiated the formal investigation procedure. For example:






—


The applicants allege that the Commission failed to take into account the fact that the parameters of the reference system identified by the Commission were clearly not consistent with the objective of the risk tax.










—


The applicants further maintain that the Commission failed to take into account the fact that the credit institutions that fall inside or outside the scope of the risk tax are in a comparable legal and factual situation, in the light of the objective of the tax system.










—


In addition, it is argued that the Commission misapplied the case-law of the Court of Justice, when assessing the threshold for taxation.










—


The applicants also argue that the Commission failed to take into account the fact that there was no justification of the difference in treatment and that it was under no circumstances proportionate.










—


Finally, the applicants assert that the examination carried out by the Commission during the preliminary examination procedure was insufficient and incomplete.






(1)  COM(2021) 8637 final and see publication in OJ 2021 C 511, p. 2.
Case C-142/22: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 2 March 2022 — Criminal proceedings against OE
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, infringement of EU law, judgment of the Court (EU), offence, penalty, public prosecution








C_2022191EN.01002002.xml










10.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/20






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 2 March 2022 — Criminal proceedings against OE
(Case C-142/22)
(2022/C 191/26)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Criminal proceedings against

OE

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 27 of the Framework Decision (1) be interpreted as meaning that a decision to surrender a person creates a legal relationship between him, the executing State and the requesting State such that any issue taken to have been finally determined in that decision must also be taken to have been determined for the purposes of the procedure for obtaining consent to further prosecution or punishment for other offences?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is that Article 27 does not require that interpretation, does a national procedural rule breach the principle of effectiveness if it operates so as to prevent the person concerned from relying, in the context of the consent application, upon a relevant judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered in the period of time after the order for surrender?






(1)  2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002, L 190, p. 1).
Case C-172/22 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by FZ and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-618/20, FZ and Others v Commission
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, posted worker, remuneration of work, retroactivity of a law, wage determination








C_2022441EN.01000401.xml










21.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/4






Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by FZ and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-618/20, FZ and Others v Commission
(Case C-172/22 P)
(2022/C 441/07)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: FZ and Others (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 5 October 2022, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
Case T-149/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — UGA Nutraceuticals v EUIPO — Vitae Health Innovation (VITADHA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark VITADHA — Earlier Spanish word mark VITANADH — 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))
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, baby food, chemical product, dietary product, pharmaceutical product, plant health product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2022171EN.01003101.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/31






Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — UGA Nutraceuticals v EUIPO — Vitae Health Innovation (VITADHA)
(Case T-149/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark VITADHA - Earlier Spanish word mark VITANADH - 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))
(2022/C 171/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: UGA Nutraceuticals Srl (Gubbio, Italy) (represented by: M. Riva, J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Vitae Health Innovation, SL (Montmeló, Spain) (represented by: E. Torner Lasalle, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2021 (Case R 2719/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Vitae Health Innovation and UGA Nutraceuticals.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders UGA Nutraceuticals Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Case T-615/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Mood Media Netherlands v EUIPO — Tailoradio (MOOD MEDIA) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark MOOD MEDIA — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use)
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, audiovisual equipment, broadcasting, consultancy, electrical equipment, film production, registered trade mark, teaching materials, trade-mark law








C_2022191EN.01002602.xml










10.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/26






Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Mood Media Netherlands v EUIPO — Tailoradio (MOOD MEDIA)
(Case T-615/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark MOOD MEDIA - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use)
(2022/C 191/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mood Media Netherlands BV (Naarden, Netherlands) (represented by: A.M. Pecoraro, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Tailoradio Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi, A. Sobol, F. Santonocito and S. Bernardini, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2020 (Case R 1767/2019-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Tailoradio and Mood Media Netherlands.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 July 2020 (Case R 1767/2019-1);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mood Media Netherlands BV;










4.


Orders Tailoradio Srl to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.
Case T-1/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ v EUIPO — Bog-Fran (Furniture) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an item of furniture — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of the earlier design — Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 — Decision adopted following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Res judicata)
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, furniture industry








C_2022171EN.01002901.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/29






Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ v EUIPO — Bog-Fran (Furniture)
(Case T-1/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an item of furniture - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Disclosure of the earlier design - Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Decision adopted following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Res judicata)
(2022/C 171/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ S.A. (Ostrów Mazowiecka, Poland) (represented by: H. Basiński, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bog-Fran sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Mikosza and E. Guissart, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2020 (Case R 595/2020-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Bog-Fran and Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Bog-Fran sp. z o.o. sp.k..






(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.
Case T-669/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Pluscard Service v EUIPO — (PLUSCARD) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark PLUSCARD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business management, consultancy, electronic money, financial services, information storage and retrieval, payment system, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2022171EN.01002701.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/27






Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Pluscard Service v EUIPO — (PLUSCARD)
(Case T-669/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark PLUSCARD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 171/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pluscard Service-Gesellschaft für Kreditkarten-Processing mbH (Saarbrücken, Germany) (represented by: M. Dury, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2020 (Case R 638/2020-4), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark PLUSCARD.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Pluscard Service-Gesellschaft für Kreditkarten-Processing mbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.