do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-316/22: Action brought on 27 May 2022 — QC and Others v EUIPO — Przedsiębiorstwo Drobiarskie Grzegorz Wyrębski (BLUE BRAND CHICKEN)
Date: 2022-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, frozen product, poultry, poultrymeat, preserved product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022284EN.01004901.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/49






Action brought on 27 May 2022 — QC and Others v EUIPO — Przedsiębiorstwo Drobiarskie Grzegorz Wyrębski (BLUE BRAND CHICKEN)
(Case T-316/22)
(2022/C 284/67)
Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties


Applicants: QC, QD and QE (represented by: A. Suskiewicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Przedsiębiorstwo Drobiarskie Grzegorz Wyrębski (Wróblew, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietors of the trade mark at issue: Applicants

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional EU trade mark ‘BLUE BRAND CHICKEN’ — EU trade mark No 13 071 378

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2022 in Case R 1166/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings in the form of expenses necessarily incurred by the applicants for the purpose of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Plea alleging that the findings of EUIPO are inconsistent with the Polish legal order;










—


Plea regarding the classification of [Przedsiębiorstwo Drobiarskie Grzegorz Wyrębski] as a ‘third party’ for the purposes of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Breach of the principle of the uniformity of case-law and infringement of Article 63(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Plea alleging that an incorrect date was used when determining the date of filing of the EU trade mark at issue, that is to say, plea alleging infringement of Articles 36 and 37 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Plea alleging that the decision was issued to a person incorrectly designated as a party to the proceedings in view of the removal of Przedsiębiorstwo Drobiarskie Grzegorz Wyrębski from the register of economic activity on 2 January 2020.
Case C-344/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 27 May 2022 — Gemeinde A v Finanzamt
Date: 2022-05-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, local legislation, local tax, medical centre, municipality, restriction on competition








C_2022398EN.01001102.xml










17.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 27 May 2022 — Gemeinde A v Finanzamt
(Case C-344/22)
(2022/C 398/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gemeinde A

Defendant: Finanzamt

Questions referred







1.


In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, does a municipality which, on the basis of municipal bylaws, imposes a ‘spa tax’ (of a certain amount per day’s stay) on visitors staying in the municipality (spa guests) for the provision of spa facilities (for example a spa park, a spa building, footpaths) carry out, by providing the spa facilities to the spa guests in return for a spa tax, an economic activity for the purposes of Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if the spa facilities are in any event freely accessible to everyone (and therefore also, for example, to residents not subject to the spa tax or to other persons not subject to the spa tax)?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: In the circumstances in the main proceedings described above, is the municipal territory alone the relevant geographic market for the purpose of examining whether treating the municipality as a non-taxable person would lead to ‘significant distortions of competition’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case T-324/22: Action brought on 27 May 2022 — Ecoalf Recycled Fabrics v EUIPO (BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLANET B)
Date: 2022-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, household article, leather, packaging product, personal effects, pulp and paper industry, registered trade mark, teaching materials, trade-mark law








C_2022284EN.01005201.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/52






Action brought on 27 May 2022 — Ecoalf Recycled Fabrics v EUIPO (BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLANET B)
(Case T-324/22)
(2022/C 284/71)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Ecoalf Recycled Fabrics, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D. Gómez Sánchez and J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLANET B — Application for registration No 18 354 287

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2022 in Case R 1925/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and order the continuation of the processing of EU trademark No 18 354 287 BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLANET B applied for in order to distinguish goods in Classes 3, 16, 18 and 21; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including the costs of the appeal before EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the general principles of EU law: equal treatment and good administration.
Case T-315/22: Action brought on 27 May 2022 — Yayla Türk v EUIPO — Marmara Import-Export (Sütat)
Date: 2022-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, milk product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022276EN.01001902.xml










18.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 276/19






Action brought on 27 May 2022 — Yayla Türk v EUIPO — Marmara Import-Export (Sütat)
(Case T-315/22)
(2022/C 276/28)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Yayla Türk Lebensmittelvertrieb GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marmara Import-Export GmbH (Ratingen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Sütat’ — EU trade mark No 5 414 561

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2022 in Case R 1184/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


reject Marmara Import-Export GmbH’s application of 17 June 2020 for a declaration of invalidity in respect of EU trade mark No 44 583 C;
in the alternative: refer the case back to EUIPO for a further hearing and decision;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the right to be heard.
Case C-343/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 May 2022 — PT v VB
Date: 2022-05-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Switzerland, civil proceedings, claim, debt, injunction, private international law








C_2022340EN.01001701.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 May 2022 — PT v VB
(Case C-343/22)
(2022/C 340/21)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant and appellant on a point of law: PT

Claimant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: VB

Question referred

Must Article 34(2) of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 30 October 2007 (‘the Lugano Convention’) (1) be interpreted as meaning that the statement of claim in an action seeking repayment of a debt, which was brought after a Swiss order for payment had been issued previously and which did not include an application for the annulment of the objection lodged against the order for payment, constitutes the document which instituted the proceedings?


(1)  OJ 2009 L 147, p. 1.