do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-515/21: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — Zeta Farmaceutici v EUIPO — Specchiasol (EUPHYTOS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU wordmark EUPHYTOS — Earlier EU figurative mark EuPhidra — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 56(2) and Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 64(2) and Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Relevant periods — Submission of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)
Date: 2022-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, hairdressing and beauty care, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023035EN.01005201.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/52






Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — Zeta Farmaceutici v EUIPO — Specchiasol (EUPHYTOS)
(Case T-515/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU wordmark EUPHYTOS - Earlier EU figurative mark EuPhidra - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 56(2) and Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 64(2) and Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relevant periods - Submission of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)
(2023/C 35/61)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Zeta Farmaceutici SpA (Vicenza, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Scardocchia, J. Crespo Carrillo and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Specchiasol Srl (Bussolengo, Italy)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment and alteration of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 June 2021 (Case R 2094/2019-1).

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 10 June 2021 (Case R 2094/2019-1);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Zeta Farmaceutici SpA.






(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.
Case T-151/22: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — General Wire Spring v EUIPO (GENERAL PIPE CLEANERS) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark GENERAL PIPE CLEANERS — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic device, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023035EN.01005802.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/58






Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — General Wire Spring v EUIPO (GENERAL PIPE CLEANERS)
(Case T-151/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark GENERAL PIPE CLEANERS - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2023/C 35/71)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: General Wire Spring Co. (McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: E. Carrillo, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 January 2022 (Case R 1452/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders General Wire Spring Co. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.
Case T-701/21: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — Allessa v EUIPO — Dumerth (CASSELLAPARK) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — EU word mark CASSELLAPARK — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Lack of descriptive character — Mark not of such a nature as to mislead the public — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building industry, parking area, property leasing, real estate business, registered trade mark, storage, trade-mark law








C_2023035EN.01005501.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/55






Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — Allessa v EUIPO — Dumerth (CASSELLAPARK)
(Case T-701/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - EU word mark CASSELLAPARK - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Lack of descriptive character - Mark not of such a nature as to mislead the public - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2023/C 35/65)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Allessa GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: S. Fröhlich, M. Hartmann and H. Lerchl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Carim Dumerth (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: T. Wieland and C. Corbet, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 August 2021 (Case R 1043/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Rejects the appeal;










2.


Orders Allessa GmbH to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 22 November 2022 2022/C 444/05
Date: 2022-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022444EN.01000501.xml










23.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 444/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

22 November 2022
(2022/C 444/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0274 




JPY


Japanese yen


145,20 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4377 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86358 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,9653 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9791 




ISK


Iceland króna


145,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,4445 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,351 




HUF


Hungarian forint


408,23 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7125 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9269 




TRY


Turkish lira


19,1221 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5473 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3765 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,0313 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6707 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4167 




KRW


South Korean won


1 392,68 




ZAR


South African rand


17,7568 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3344 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5438 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 106,79 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7055 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,942 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,110 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,4578 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,0951 




INR


Indian rupee


83,8768 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-72/21: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — Bowden and Young v Europol (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Europol staff — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Loss of nationality of a Member State — Termination of contract — Article 47(b)(iii) of the CEOS — Request for an exception from the condition of employment provided for in Article 12(2)(a) of the CEOS — Refusal to grant an exception — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Length of the administrative procedure — Reasonable time — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Interest of the service — Duty of care — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2022-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: United Kingdom, administrative procedure, equal treatment, nationality, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), termination of employment, withdrawal from the EU








C_2023024EN.01003601.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/36






Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — Bowden and Young v Europol
(Case T-72/21) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Europol staff - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union - Loss of nationality of a Member State - Termination of contract - Article 47(b)(iii) of the CEOS - Request for an exception from the condition of employment provided for in Article 12(2)(a) of the CEOS - Refusal to grant an exception - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Length of the administrative procedure - Reasonable time - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Interest of the service - Duty of care - Manifest error of assessment)
(2023/C 24/49)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Ian James Bowden (The Hague, the Netherlands), Janey Young (The Hague) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

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

Re:

By their action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of the decisions of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) of 30 March 2020, by which it refused to grant them an exception from the condition of nationality laid down in Article 12(2)(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘CEOS’) and consequently terminated their respective contracts on the basis of Article 47(b)(iii) of the CEOS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Ian James Bowden and Mrs Janey Young to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10918 – PETRONAS / DURIO / ORIM HOLDING) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 450/01
Date: 2022-11-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, merger control, oil industry








C_2022450EN.01000101.xml










28.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 450/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10918 – PETRONAS / DURIO / ORIM HOLDING)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 450/01)
On 23 November 2022, 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 32022M10918. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-14/22: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — uwe JetStream v EUIPO (JET STREAM) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark JET STREAM — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical equipment, pump, registered trade mark, sports facilities, trade-mark law, water treatment








C_2023024EN.01003801.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/38






Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — uwe JetStream v EUIPO (JET STREAM)
(Case T-14/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark JET STREAM - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2023/C 24/52)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: uwe JetStream GmbH (Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneider and C. Nemec, lawyers)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 November 2021 (Case R 1092/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders uwe JetStream GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.
Case C-720/22 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2022 by QN against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2022 in Case T-179/21, QN v Commission
Date: 2022-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, indemnification, staff assessment








C_2023278EN.01001201.xml










7.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/12






Appeal brought on 23 November 2022 by QN against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2022 in Case T-179/21, QN v Commission
(Case C-720/22 P)
(2023/C 278/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: QN (represented by: N. Flandin and L. Levi, avocates)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 27 Juin 2023, the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that QN shall bear his own costs.