do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-615/22: Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Cemet (Halime)
Date: 2022-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, agricultural product, foodstuff, milk product, processed food product, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2022432EN.01003801.xml










14.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/38






Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Cemet (Halime)
(Case T-615/22)
(2022/C 432/45)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law, and C. Milbradt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cemet Oy (Helsinki, Finland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Halime — Application for registration No 18 241 593

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2022 in Case R 121/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order that EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the EUIPO (should it take part as intervener) each bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) by ignoring the fact that the earlier marks were certification marks, not individual marks;










—


The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council in its analysis of the likelihood of confusion;










—


The Board of Appeal erred under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council when analysing the distinctiveness of the earlier certification marks;










—


The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by carrying out an erroneous comparison of the respective goods and services.






(1)  OJ 2015 L 336, p. 1.
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 374/05
Date: 2022-09-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical product, chromium, health control, health risk, iron and steel industry, market approval, marketing standard, metal coating, oxide








C_2022374EN.01001601.xml










30.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/16






Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)


(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1)
)


(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 374/05)

Decision granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2022) 6701


23 September 2022


Chromium trioxide
EC No. 215-607-8, CAS No. 1333-82-0


Salzgitter Flachstahl GmbH, Eisenhüttenstraße 99, 38239 Salzgitter, Germany


REACH/22/32/0


Functional chrome plating using chromium trioxide in closed reactor systems for the establishment of a ‘conventional’ hard chrome coating on working rolls applied in the steel industry for the pre-manufacturing of cold-rolled, high-quality textured sheet metal


31 December 2032


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.




REACH/22/32/1


Pretex® functional chrome plating using chromium trioxide in closed reactor systems for the establishment of adjustable hemispherical surface structures on working rolls applied in the steel industry for the manufacture of cold-rolled, high quality textured sheet metal






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: Authorisation (europa.eu)
Case T-53/22: Order of the General Court of 30 September 2022 — Collard v ID (Law governing the institutions — Member of the European Parliament — Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his or her political group — Applicant who has ceased to reply to the Court’s requests — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2022-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, disciplinary proceedings, political group (EP)








C_2022463EN.01004902.xml










5.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/49






Order of the General Court of 30 September 2022 — Collard v ID
(Case T-53/22) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his or her political group - Applicant who has ceased to reply to the Court’s requests - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 463/72)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Gilbert Collard (Vauvert, France) (represented by: B. Kuchukian, lawyer)

Defendant: Identity and Democracy political group (ID) (represented by: J. Bosquet, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decisions of the Bureau of the European Parliament’s ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID) of 22 and 25 January 2022 by which he was suspended and then excluded from that group.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID).










2.


The applicant shall pay the costs, with the exception of those on which the Court has previously ruled in the order of 14 July 2022, Collard v Parliament and ID (T-53/22, not published, EU:T:2022:463).






(1)  OJ C 158, 11.4.2022.
Case T-610/22: Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Nienaber v EUIPO (BoneKare)
Date: 2022-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, agricultural product, animal feedingstuffs, dietary product, food supplement, pharmaceutical product, plant health product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2022441EN.01002602.xml










21.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/26






Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Nienaber v EUIPO (BoneKare)
(Case T-610/22)
(2022/C 441/36)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Jannah Nienaber (Cloppenburg, Germany), Andreas Nienaber (Cloppenburg) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark BoneKare — Application No 18 411 756

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 August 2022 in Case R 348/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


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





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-609/22: Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Nienaber v EUIPO — St. Hippolyt Mühle Ebert (BoneKare)
Date: 2022-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal feedingstuffs, food supplement, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022441EN.01002601.xml










21.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/26






Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Nienaber v EUIPO — St. Hippolyt Mühle Ebert (BoneKare)
(Case T-609/22)
(2022/C 441/35)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Andreas Nienaber (Cloppenburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: St. Hippolyt Mühle Ebert GmbH (Dielheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark BoneKare — EU trade mark No 10 055 903

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 August 2022 in Case R 436/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division of the defendant and its Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


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










—


Infringement of the second sentence of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-608/22: Action brought on 30 September 2022 — KHG v EUIPO — Dreams (Dreamer)
Date: 2022-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, floor coverings, furniture industry, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2022441EN.01002501.xml










21.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/25






Action brought on 30 September 2022 — KHG v EUIPO — Dreams (Dreamer)
(Case T-608/22)
(2022/C 441/34)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: KHG GmbH & Co. KG (Schönefeld, Germany) (represented by: D. Gehnen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dreams Ltd (High Wycombe, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application EU figurative mark Dreamer — Application for registration No 17 652 165

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2022 in Case R 1975/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and, if it joins the proceedings, the other party 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-607/22: Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Kozitsyn v Council
Date: 2022-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russo-Ukrainian issue, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2022432EN.01003501.xml










14.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/35






Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Kozitsyn v Council
(Case T-607/22)
(2022/C 432/43)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Andrey Anatolyevich Kozitsyn (Verkhnyaya Pyshma, Russia) (represented by: J. Grand d’Esnon, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Conclusions

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


primarily,
annul:
Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/1272 of 21 July 2022 (1) in so far as concerns Mr Kozitsyn;
Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/1270 of 21 July 2022 (2) in so far as concerns Mr Kozitsyn;
Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/329 of 25 February 2022; (3)

Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/330 of 25 February 2022; (4)











—


in the alternative,
annul:
Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/1272 of 21 July 2022 in relation to Mr Kozitsyn;
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2022/1270 of 21 July 2022 in so far as concerns Mr Kozitsyn;
Article 1(2)(g) of Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/329 of 25 February 2022;
Article 1(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/330 of 25 February 2022;










—


and in any event,
order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs pursuant to Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in the context of Case T-234/22, Ismailova v Council.


(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1272 of 21 July 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 193, p. 219).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1270 of 21 July 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 193, p. 133).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 50, p. 1).

(4)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 51, p. 1).
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries 2022/C 374/06
Date: 2022-09-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Ireland, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2022374EN.01001701.xml










30.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/17






Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2022/C 374/06)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


16.8.2022




Duration


16.8.2022 - 31.12.2022




Member State


Ireland




Stock or Group of stocks


ALB/AN05N




Species


Albacore (Thunnus alalunga)




Zone


Atlantic Ocean, north of 5°N




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


05/TQ109






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 29 September 2022 2022/C 374/04
Date: 2022-09-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022374EN.01001501.xml










30.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/15






Euro exchange rates (1)

29 September 2022
(2022/C 374/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


0,9706 




JPY


Japanese yen


140,46 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4365 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89485 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,9580 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9538 




ISK


Iceland króna


140,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,4518 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,687 




HUF


Hungarian forint


421,93 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,8570 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9481 




TRY


Turkish lira


18,0000 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4982 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3294 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


7,6192 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7040 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,3961 




KRW


South Korean won


1 388,34 




ZAR


South African rand


17,4466 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9223 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5280 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 735,97 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4992 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,860 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,946 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,2521 




MXN


Mexican peso


19,5779 




INR


Indian rupee


79,3140 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Commission Notice amending the Commission notice on guidance on cooperative procurement in the fields of defence and security (Defence and Security Procurement Directive 2009/81/EC) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 374/01
Date: 2022-09-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU competition policy, European defence policy, award of contract, common security and defence policy, invitation to tender, military equipment, services contract, supplies contract, works contract








C_2022374EN.01000101.xml










30.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/1






Commission Notice amending the Commission notice on guidance on cooperative procurement in the fields of defence and security (Defence and Security Procurement Directive 2009/81/EC)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 374/01)
On 8 May 2019, the Commission adopted the Commission notice on guidance on cooperative procurement in the fields of defence and security (1) (hereinafter ‘the Notice’). The Notice looks at the ways in which cooperative procurement can take place in accordance with Defence Procurement Directive 2009/81/EC (2) (hereinafter: ‘the Directive’).
In particular, the Notice provides for detailed guidance for the application of the exception under Article 13(c) of the Directive. In this context, the Notice specifies the details for the notification of a joint cooperative programme by the Member State(s) to the Commission.
The Notice currently foresees that the notification be sent to the Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW). Following the reorganisation of responsibilities within the Commission services, and the transfer of the responsibility for the Directive to the Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space (DG DEFIS), the contact details need to be updated.
Therefore, the fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs of point 3.7 of the Notice are replaced by the following:

‘Notifications can be sent either by post or by email to the Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space (DG DEFIS). The email address for the notifications is: EC-DEFENCE-PROCUREMENT@ec.europa.eu
The postal address is:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space (DG DEFIS)




Defence and Security Procurement




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË’







(1)  Commission notice on guidance on cooperative procurement in the fields of defence and security (Defence and Security Procurement Directive 2009/81/EC) (OJ C 157, 8.5.2019, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC (OJ L 216, 20.8.2009, p. 76).
Case T-54/22: Order of the General Court of 30 September 2022 — Rivière v ID (Law governing the institutions — Member of the European Parliament — Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his or her political group — Applicant who has ceased to reply to the Court’s requests — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2022-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, disciplinary proceedings, political group (EP)








C_2022463EN.01005001.xml










5.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/50






Order of the General Court of 30 September 2022 — Rivière v ID
(Case T-54/22) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his or her political group - Applicant who has ceased to reply to the Court’s requests - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 463/73)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jérôme Rivière (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Kuchukian, lawyer)

Defendant: Identity and Democracy political group (ID) (represented by: J. Bosquet, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decisions of the Bureau of the European Parliament’s ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID) of 21 and 25 January 2022 by which he was suspended and then excluded from that group.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID).










2.


The applicant shall pay the costs, with the exception of those on which the Court has previously ruled in the order of 14 July 2022, Rivière v Parliament and ID (T-54/22, not published, EU:T:2022:472).






(1)  OJ C 158, 11.4.2022.
Case T-611/22: Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Marico v EUIPO — Regal Impex (SAFFOLA)
Date: 2022-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food fat, registered trade mark, sunflower seed oil, trade-mark law








C_2022441EN.01002701.xml










21.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/27






Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Marico v EUIPO — Regal Impex (SAFFOLA)
(Case T-611/22)
(2022/C 441/37)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Marico Ltd (Mumbai, India) (represented by: B. Collett and S. Malynicz, Barristers-at-Law)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Regal Impex Ltd (Harrow, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark SAFFOLA — European Union trade mark No 12 568 739

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 July 2022 in Case R 1538/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener, should the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO decide to intervene, to pay the applicant’s costs and bear their own costs.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal infringed Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by wrongly concluding that the European Union trade mark proprietor had demonstrated genuine use of the contested mark in respect of ‘edible oils and fats’;










—


The Board of Appeal erred evidentially, procedurally and legally in respect of the finding that sunflower oil is an edible fat.