do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-54/23: Action brought on 8 February 2023 — W.B. Studio v EUIPO — E.Land Italy (BF BELFE)
Date: 2023-02-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal skin, clothing, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, footwear industry, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2023104EN.01004301.xml










20.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/43






Action brought on 8 February 2023 — W.B. Studio v EUIPO — E.Land Italy (BF BELFE)
(Case T-54/23)
(2023/C 104/64)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: W.B. Studio Sas di Wivian Bodini & C. (Milano, Italy) (represented by: V. Piccarreta and G. Romanelli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: E.Land Italy Srl (Milano, Italy)

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 figurative mark BF BELFE — European Union trade mark No 139 840

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 November 2022 in Case R 870/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Partially annul the contested decision to the extent it upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division and, consequently, declare the revocation of the trade mark at issue;










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of the present proceedings, including the costs deriving from the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the First Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of article 19 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.
Case T-53/23: Action brought on 8 February 2023 — TVR Automotive v EUIPO — TVR Italia (TVR)
Date: 2023-02-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aeronautical industry, clothing, footwear industry, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, shipbuilding, trade-mark law, two-wheeled vehicle, vehicle parts








C_2023112EN.01004101.xml










27.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/41






Action brought on 8 February 2023 — TVR Automotive v EUIPO — TVR Italia (TVR)
(Case T-53/23)
(2023/C 112/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: TVR Automotive Ltd (Walliswood, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TVR Italia Srl (Milano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark TVR — Application for registration No 12 185 922

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 October 2022 in Case R 1493/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO, and TVR Italia S.R.L., if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10924 – PROXIMUS / ETHIAS / JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 56/03
Date: 2023-02-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, economic concentration, insurance company, life assurance, merger control, provision of services, retail trade, services of general interest, telecommunications, wholesale trade








C_2023056EN.01001301.xml










15.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/13






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10924 – PROXIMUS / ETHIAS / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 56/03)
On 8 February 2023, 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 32023M10924. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-538/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 –PBL and WA v Commission (State aid — Aid to a professional football club — Refusal to register a complaint lodged by one of the members of a football club — Status of interested party)
Date: 2023-02-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, Ile-de-France, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, professional sport, sports body








C_2023112EN.01003201.xml










27.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/32






Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 –PBL and WA v Commission
(Case T-538/21) (1)

(State aid - Aid to a professional football club - Refusal to register a complaint lodged by one of the members of a football club - Status of interested party)
(2023/C 112/40)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Penya Barça Lyon: Plus que des supporters (PBL) (Bron, France) and WA (represented by: J. Branco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action, the applicants seek, under Article 263 TFEU, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision COMP.C.4/AH/mdr 2021(092342) of 1 September 2021 on the status of a complaint submitted in connection with alleged State aid granted to the Paris Saint-Germain football club (SA.64489), and, second, directions to be issued to the European Commission.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders Penya Barça Lyon: Plus que des supporters (PBL) and WA to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.
Case C-67/23, W. GmbH: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2023 — Criminal proceedings against S.Z.
Date: 2023-02-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Myanmar/Burma, economic sanctions, import (EU), international sanctions, originating product, wood product








C_2023155EN.01003201.xml










2.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/32






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2023 — Criminal proceedings against S.Z.
(Case C-67/23, W. GmbH)
(2023/C 155/42)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Accused: S.Z.

Confiscation party: W. GmbH.

Other party to the proceedings: Der Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

Questions referred







1.


Is the term ‘originate in Burma/Myanmar’ under Article 2(2)(a)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that none of the following processing operations performed in a third country (in the present case: Taiwan) on teak logs grown in Myanmar brought about a change of origin, to the effect that teak wood processed accordingly remained ‘goods’ that ‘originate in Burma/Myanmar’:






—


Debranching and debarking of teak logs;










—


Sawing teak logs into teak squares (debranched and debarked logs sawn into the shape of wooden cuboids);










—


Sawing teak logs into planks or boards (sawn wood)?














2.


Is the term ‘exported from Burma/Myanmar’ under Article 2(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 194/2008 to be interpreted as meaning that only goods imported into the European Union directly from Myanmar are covered, to the effect that goods initially exported to a third country (in the present case: Taiwan), and then transported onwards from there to the European Union, were not subject to the regulation, irrespective of whether they had undergone working or processing conferring origin in that third country?










3.


Is Article 2(2)(a)(i) of Regulation No 194/2008 to be interpreted as meaning that a certificate of origin issued by a third country (in the present case: Taiwan) — which states that teak logs originating from Myanmar that have been sawn up or sawn to size have, as a result of that processing in the third country, acquired a status of origin in that State — is not binding for the purposes of assessing whether there has been an infringement of the import prohibition laid down in Article 2(2) of Regulation No 194/2008?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006 (OJ 2008 L 66, p. 1).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10997 – NB / ARDIAN / MEDIOLANUM / NEOPHARMED) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 48/08
Date: 2023-02-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, cosmetic product, economic concentration, holding company, investment, investment company, medical device, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, sale, subsidiary








C_2023048EN.01004401.xml










8.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/44






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10997 – NB / ARDIAN / MEDIOLANUM / NEOPHARMED)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 48/08)

1.   
On 31 January 2023, 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:






—


Ardian France S.A. (France),










—


NB Renaissance Partners Holdings S.à r.l. (Luxembourg), controlled by Neuberger Berman Group, LLC (United States of America),










—


Mediolanum Farmaceutici S.p.A. (Italy),










—


Neopharmed Gentili S.p.A. (Italy).




Ardian France S.A., NB Renaissance Partners Holdings S.à r.l. and Mediolanum Farmaceutici S.p.A. will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Neopharmed Gentili S.p.A.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:






—


Ardian France S.A. is a French private equity company, which manages and advises, through its subsidiaries, a number of investment funds,










—


NB Renaissance Partners Holdings S.à r.l. is part of the Neuberger Berman group, which provides a broad range of investment solutions,










—


Mediolanum Farmaceutici S.p.A. is an Italian-based holding company mainly active, through its subsidiaries, in the pharmaceutical and contract manufacturing organization sectors,










—


Neopharmed Gentili S.p.A is active in the commercialization of finished dose pharmaceutical products and supplements in various therapeutic areas, sale of medical devices and cosmetics.






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.



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.10997 – NB / ARDIAN / MEDIOLANUM / NEOPHARMED
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’).
Case T-787/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — UniSkin v EUIPO — Unicskin (UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild — Earlier national figurative mark UNICSKIN YOUR EFFECTIVE SOLUTION — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2023-02-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, electronic commerce, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2023112EN.01003202.xml










27.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/32






Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — UniSkin v EUIPO — Unicskin (UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild)
(Case T-787/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild - Earlier national figurative mark UNICSKIN YOUR EFFECTIVE SOLUTION - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Distinctive character of the earlier mark - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2023/C 112/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: UniSkin ApS (Silkeborg, Denmark) (represented by: M. Hoffgaard Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska and T. Frydendahl, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Unicskin, SL (Madrid, Spain)

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 20 October 2021 (Case R 771/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders UniSkin ApS to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.
Case T-55/23: Action brought on 8 February 2023 — Tiendanimal/EUIPO — Salvana Tiernahrung (SALVAJE)
Date: 2023-02-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal feedingstuffs, animal welfare, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2023112EN.01004201.xml










27.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/42






Action brought on 8 February 2023 — Tiendanimal/EUIPO — Salvana Tiernahrung (SALVAJE)
(Case T-55/23)
(2023/C 112/54)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Tiendanimal Comercio Electronico de Articulos para Mascotas, SL (Malaga, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Salvana Tiernahrung GmbH (Klein Offenseth-Sparrieshoop, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark SALVAJE — Application for registration No 14 882 666

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 November 2022 in Case R 2192/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


revoke the contested decision as well as the refusal of European trademark application No 14 882 666 SALVAJE (and design) in Class 31 and part of the services in Class 35; and










—


order the defendant and Salvana Tiernahrung GmbH, in case it decides to intervene in the present proceedings, 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.