do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-623/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Vaillant (Puma) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Puma — Earlier EU figurative mark PUMA — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, air conditioning, heating, registered trade mark, solar collector, thermal equipment, trade-mark law








C_2023035EN.01005302.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/53






Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Vaillant (Puma)
(Case T-623/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Puma - Earlier EU figurative mark PUMA - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2023/C 35/63)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer, D. Stoyanova-Valchanova and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Vaillant GmbH (Remscheid, Germany) (represented by: S. Abrar, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 July 2021 (Case R 1875/2019-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Puma SE to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.
Case C-566/21, S (Amendment of an unfair term): Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — S v AA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Reply to the question referred for a preliminary ruling which may be clearly deduced from existing case-law or which leaves no room for reasonable doubt — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 6(1) — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency (Swiss francs) — Effects of a declaration that a term is unfair — Power of the national court — Prohibition, in principal, on modifying the contract by revising the content of the unfair term)
Date: 2022-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, exchange rate, foreign currency, national currency, unfair terms of contract








C_2023104EN.01001101.xml










20.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/11






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — S v AA
(Case C-566/21, (1) S (Amendment of an unfair term))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Reply to the question referred for a preliminary ruling which may be clearly deduced from existing case-law or which leaves no room for reasonable doubt - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 6(1) - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency (Swiss francs) - Effects of a declaration that a term is unfair - Power of the national court - Prohibition, in principal, on modifying the contract by revising the content of the unfair term)
(2023/C 104/13)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: S

Respondent: AA

Operative part of the order

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts
must be interpreted as precluding a national court — which has found that a term contained in a loan agreement concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair and that its removal does not prevent the contract from continuing to exist — from altering the scope of that term, in such a way that the right, granted to the seller or supplier alone, under certain conditions, to convert the currency in which the contract was drawn up into the national currency, is replaced by an obligation to do so at the consumer’s request.


(1)  
            OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.
Case T-738/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — Bora Creations v EUIPO (essence) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark essence — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, confectionery, cosmetic product, decontamination, food supplement, milk product, protective equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023035EN.01005502.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/55






Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — Bora Creations v EUIPO (essence)
(Case T-738/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark essence - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2023/C 35/66)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Bora Creations, SL (Andratx, Spain) (represented by: R. Lange and M. Ebner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 September 2021 (Case R 693/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bora Creations, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.
Case T-747/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — Borussia VfL 1900 Mönchengladbach v EUIPO — Neng (Fohlenelf) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Fohlenelf — Genuine use of the mark — Article 58(1)(a), Article 94(1) and Article 97(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, clothing, cosmetic product, office supplies, registered trade mark, sporting event, sports facilities, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2023035EN.01005601.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/56






Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — Borussia VfL 1900 Mönchengladbach v EUIPO — Neng (Fohlenelf)
(Case T-747/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Fohlenelf - Genuine use of the mark - Article 58(1)(a), Article 94(1) and Article 97(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2023/C 35/67)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Borussia VfL 1900 Mönchengladbach GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Kitzberger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: David Neng (Brüggen, Germany) (represented by: D. Breuer, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on 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 28 September 2021 (Case R 2126/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 September 2021 (Case R 2126/2020-4) in so far as proof of genuine use of EU word mark Fohlenelf was rejected in relation to ‘soaps’ in Class 3, ‘self-adhesive films of paper or plastic, self-adhesive labels’ in Class 16, ‘porcelain and earthenware’ in Class 21, as well as in relation to ‘drinking bottles’, in so far as they constitute a subcategory of goods within ‘household or kitchen containers’ also in Class 21, ‘bath towels of textile’ in Class 24 and ‘games, toys’ in Class 28;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.
Case T-301/19: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — PNB Banka v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 6(5)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Need for the ECB’s direct supervision of a less significant credit institution — Request by the national competent authority — Article 68(5) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 — ECB decision classifying PNB Banka as a significant entity subject to its direct prudential supervision — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Rights of the defence — Access to the administrative file — Report laid down in Article 68(3) of Regulation No 468/2014 — Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure — Request for a hearing lacking a statement of reasons)
Date: 2022-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, credit institution, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2023035EN.01004601.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/46






Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — PNB Banka v ECB
(Case T-301/19) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 6(5)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Need for the ECB’s direct supervision of a less significant credit institution - Request by the national competent authority - Article 68(5) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 - ECB decision classifying PNB Banka as a significant entity subject to its direct prudential supervision - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Rights of the defence - Access to the administrative file - Report laid down in Article 68(3) of Regulation No 468/2014 - Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure - Request for a hearing lacking a statement of reasons)
(2023/C 35/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: PNB Banka AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, F. Bonnard and D. Segoin, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB), notified by letter of 1 March 2019, to classify the applicant as a significant entity subject to its direct prudential supervision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders PNB Banka AS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).






(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Case T-537/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — Lithuania v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure by Lithuania — Aid for early retirement — Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Article 34(6) and Article 35(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014)
Date: 2022-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, early retirement, eligibility criteria








C_2023035EN.01004901.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/49






Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — Lithuania v Commission
(Case T-537/20) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure by Lithuania - Aid for early retirement - Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 34(6) and Article 35(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014)
(2023/C 35/56)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: R. Dzikovič and K. Dieninis, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina, J. Jokubauskaitė and M. Kaduczak, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the Republic of Lithuania seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/859 of 16 June 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2020 L 195, p. 59), in so far as that decision imposed on it a flat-rate financial correction of 5 %, thereby excluding the sum of EUR 2 186 447,97 from financing under the early retirement aid measure during the period from 16 October 2013 to 30 June 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 6 December 2022 2022/C 466/05
Date: 2022-12-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022466EN.01002201.xml










7.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 466/22






Euro exchange rates (1)

6 December 2022
(2022/C 466/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0516 




JPY


Japanese yen


143,33 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4380 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86170 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,8890 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9872 




ISK


Iceland króna


148,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,4408 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,316 




HUF


Hungarian forint


415,08 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6975 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9130 




TRY


Turkish lira


19,6010 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5625 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4326 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,1813 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6583 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4263 




KRW


South Korean won


1 386,39 




ZAR


South African rand


18,2068 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3494 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5563 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 441,49 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6223 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,782 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,827 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,5113 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,6884 




INR


Indian rupee


86,6485 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-159/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — Sanetview v EUIPO — 2boca2catering (Las Cebras) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Las Cebras — Earlier national figurative mark LEZEBRA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023035EN.01006001.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/60






Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — Sanetview v EUIPO — 2boca2catering (Las Cebras)
(Case T-159/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Las Cebras - Earlier national figurative mark LEZEBRA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2023/C 35/73)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Sanetview, SLU (Andorra la Vella, Andorra) (represented by: J. Gallego Jiménez, E. Sanz Valls, P. Bauzá Martínez, Y. Hernández Viñes and C. Marí Aguilar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Crawcour Hage and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: 2boca2catering, SL (Seville, Spain)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFUE, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 January 2022 (Case R 1070/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sanetview, SLU to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.
Case C-749/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 7 December 2022 — I GmbH v J R
Date: 2022-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: infectious disease, paid leave, sick leave








C_2023045EN.01001401.xml










6.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 7 December 2022 — I GmbH v J R
(Case C-749/22)
(2023/C 45/22)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: I GmbH

Respondent of a point of law: J R

Question referred

Must Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice under which paid annual leave, which was requested by a worker and approved by the employer and which overlaps in time after the leave was approved with a government-ordered quarantine at home where a possible infection is suspected, may not be granted retroactively where the worker is not incapacitated for work on account of illness during that quarantine?


(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).
Case T-709/21: Order of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — WhatsApp Ireland v European Data Protection Board (Action for annulment — Protection of personal data — Draft decision of the lead supervisory authority — Resolution of disputes between supervisory authorities by the European Data Protection Board — Binding decision — Article 60(4) and Article 65(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Lack of individual concern)
Date: 2022-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: data protection, data-processing law, personal data, protection of communications, sanction (EU), social media, supervisory body








C_2023063EN.01004801.xml










20.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/48






Order of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — WhatsApp Ireland v European Data Protection Board
(Case T-709/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Protection of personal data - Draft decision of the lead supervisory authority - Resolution of disputes between supervisory authorities by the European Data Protection Board - Binding decision - Article 60(4) and Article 65(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Lack of individual concern)
(2023/C 63/62)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: WhatsApp Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: H.-G. Kamann, F. Louis, A. Vallery, lawyers, P. Nolan, B. Johnston, C. Monaghan, Solicitors, P. Sreenan, D. McGrath, Senior Counsel, C. Geoghegan and E. Egan McGrath, Barristers-at-Law)

Defendant: European Data Protection Board (represented by: I. Vereecken and G. Le Grand, acting as Agents, and by G. Ryelandt, E. de Lophem and P. Vernet, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Binding Decision 1/2021 of the European Data Protection Board of 28 July 2021 on the dispute between the supervisory authorities concerned arising from the draft decision regarding WhatsApp drawn up by the Data Protection Commission (Ireland).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene made by the Republic of Finland, the European Commission, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Computer & Communication Industry Association, or on the requests for confidential treatment to which they have given rise.










3.


WhatsApp Ireland Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Data Protection Board, with the exception of the latter’s costs relating to the applications to intervene.










4.


The European Data Protection Board, the Republic of Finland, the Commission, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Computer & Communication Industry Association shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.
Joint statement of the European Parliament and the Council in relation to Regulation (EU) 2022/2379, as regards the importance of establishing in all Member States a register held by national competent authorities on the use of plant protection products in agriculture 2022/C 466/04
Date: 2022-12-07
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: EU statistics, agricultural statistics, common agricultural policy, data collection, exchange of information, pesticide residue, plant health legislation, plant health product, sustainable agriculture, utilised agricultural area








C_2022466EN.01002101.xml










7.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 466/21






Joint statement of the European Parliament and the Council in relation to Regulation (EU) 2022/2379, as regards the importance of establishing in all Member States a register held by national competent authorities on the use of plant protection products in agriculture
(2022/C 466/04)
As part of the European Green Deal, the Farm to Fork Strategy and the Biodiversity Strategy highlight the need for a transition to a sustainable food system, in particular by reducing the use and risk of pesticides by 50 % by 2030 and by increasing organic farming and biodiversity-rich landscape features on agricultural land.
Under Regulation (EU) 2022/2379 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), the full collection of data on the use of plant protection products by professional users in an agricultural activity, that is a coverage of 95 % of the use in each Member State, can only be achieved when a legal requirement for professional users of plant protection products to transmit their records in electronic format to national competent authorities is applicable under Union law.
The European Parliament and the Council recognise the importance of introducing such a requirement into Union legislation and commit to working together to that end.


(1)  Regulation (EU) 2022/2379of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2022 on statistics on agricultural input and output, amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 617/2008 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1165/2008, (EC) No 543/2009 and (EC) No 1185/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 96/16/EC (OJ L 315, 7.12.2022, p. 1).