do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-75/23: Action brought on 15 February 2023 — RT France v Council
Date: 2023-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, ownership, territorial dispute, territorial law








C_2023127EN.01005001.xml










11.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/50






Action brought on 15 February 2023 — RT France v Council
(Case T-75/23)
(2023/C 127/61)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: RT France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: E. Piwnica, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2477 of 16 December 2022, amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the association ‘TV-Novosti’ and the companies in its ownership;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2022/2476 of 16 December 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, in so far as it concerns the association ‘TV-Novosti’ and the companies in its ownership;










—


order the Council of the European Union to bear the costs;










—


with all the legal consequences that entails.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Council disregarded its obligation to state reasons.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the right to property under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.










4.


Fourth plea, alleging that the Council erred in its assessment of the facts, thereby vitiating the contested measures.
Case T-341/22: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Deutsche Bank v EUIPO Operación y Auditoria (avanza Tu negocio) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark avanza Tu negocio — Earlier national figurative mark Avanza Credit de Deutsche Bank — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2023-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, bank, banking, consultancy, electronic money, financial management, financial services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023134EN.01001601.xml










17.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/16






Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Deutsche Bank v EUIPO Operación y Auditoria (avanza Tu negocio)
(Case T-341/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark avanza Tu negocio - Earlier national figurative mark Avanza Credit de Deutsche Bank - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2023/C 134/21)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Deutsche Bank, SA Española (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, J.-L. Rodriguez Fuensalida, P. Ramells Higueras and A. Figuerola Moure, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Operación y Auditoria, SA de CV, SOFOM, ENR (Mexico City, Mexico)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2022 (Case R 1808/2021-5), relating to opposition proceedings between the applicant and Operación y Auditoria, SA de CV, SOFOM, ENR.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Deutsche Bank, SA Española to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 294, 1.8.2022.
Case T-82/22: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Bambu Sales v EUIPO (BAMBU) (EU trade mark — Application for European Union word mark BAMBU — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2023-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2023127EN.01003602.xml










11.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/36






Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Bambu Sales v EUIPO (BAMBU)
(Case T-82/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for European Union word mark BAMBU - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2023/C 127/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bambu Sales, Inc. (Secaucus, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: T. Stein, lawyer)

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

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 16 December 2021 (Case R 1702/2020-1).

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 16 December 2021 (Case R 1702/2020-1) in so far as it concerns the following goods: vaporisers for the ingestion and inhalation of tobacco and other herbal matter; electronic smoking vaporisers, namely electronic cigarettes, and electronic smoking vaporisers for use as an alternative to traditional cigarettes; smoker’s vaporiser pipe cartridge sold empty; cigar cutters; electric cigarettes; electric cigars; electronic cigarettes; electronic cigarette refill cartridges sold empty; electronic cigars; hookah parts, namely hoses; liquefied gas cylinders for cigarette lighters; smoker’s articles, namely metal pocket-sized receptacles with lids for cigarette butts; smoking pipe cleaners; tobacco pipe cleaners;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders Bambu Sales, Inc. and EUIPO to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10999 – SABIC AN / ETG WORLD / EIHL) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 143/02
Date: 2023-02-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: digital transformation, economic concentration, energy industry, fertiliser industry, logistics, merger control, supply chain








C_2023143EN.01000201.xml










26.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 143/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10999 – SABIC AN / ETG WORLD / EIHL)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 143/02)
On 15 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 32023M10999. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-536/21: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Belaeronavigatsia v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists — Concept of ‘person responsible for repression’ — Error of assessment — Proportionality)
Date: 2023-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, freezing of assets, international sanctions, legal person, principle of proportionality








C_2023127EN.01003301.xml










11.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/33






Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Belaeronavigatsia v Council
(Case T-536/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists - Concept of ‘person responsible for repression’ - Error of assessment - Proportionality)
(2023/C 127/40)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Belaeronavigatsia (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Meyer and S. Van Overmeire, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and M. Carpus Carcea, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1001 of 21 June 2021 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 67), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/999 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 55), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 of 24 February 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 97), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 of 24 February 2022 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Belaeronavigatsia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.
Case T-741/21: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — ZTE Deutschland (V10) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark V10 — Absolute ground for refusal — Alphanumeric sign — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2023-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, computer equipment, electronic equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, video surveillance








C_2023127EN.01003402.xml










11.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/34






Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — ZTE Deutschland (V10)
(Case T-741/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark V10 - Absolute ground for refusal - Alphanumeric sign - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2023/C 127/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: M. Bölling, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: ZTE Deutschland GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: T.M. Müller and C. Sauerborn, 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 14 September 2021 (Case R 2101/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.
Case T-76/23: Action brought on 15 February 2023 — DDP Specialty Electronics Materials US 8 v EUIPO — Taniobis (AMBERTEC)
Date: 2023-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, resin, trade-mark law, water treatment








C_2023121EN.01001301.xml










3.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/13






Action brought on 15 February 2023 — DDP Specialty Electronics Materials US 8 v EUIPO — Taniobis (AMBERTEC)
(Case T-76/23)
(2023/C 121/17)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: DDP Specialty Electronics Materials US 8 llc (Collegeville, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: G. Gibbons, SC, R. Minch and A. Bateman, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Taniobis GmbH (Goslar, 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 word mark AMBERTEC — Application for registration No 18 104 742

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2022 in Case R 1988/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and/or the intervener (if appropriate) to pay the applicant’s costs including the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 94(1) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights including the principle of equality of arms, the right to a fair trial and the applicant’s defence rights;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-8/22: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Topcart v EUIPO — Carl International (TC CARL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark TC CARL — Earlier national figurative mark carl touch — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2023-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, maintenance, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2023127EN.01003501.xml










11.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/35






Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Topcart v EUIPO — Carl International (TC CARL)
(Case T-8/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark TC CARL - Earlier national figurative mark carl touch - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2023/C 127/43)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Topcart GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: M. Hoffmann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Carl International (Limonest, France)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 October 2021 (Case R 2561/2018-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Topcart GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.
Case C-484/22, Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Return of a minor without his parents): Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v GS, represented by his parents (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Immigration policy — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 5(a) and (b) — Return decision adopted in respect of a third-country national — Minor third-country national separated from parents in the event of return — Best interests of the child — Right to respect for family life)
Date: 2023-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: child of migrant, child protection, children's rights, foreign national, illegal migration, protection of privacy, removal, return migration, young person








C_2023216EN.01002201.xml










19.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/22






Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v GS, represented by his parents
(Case C-484/22, (1) Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Return of a minor without his parents))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Immigration policy - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 5(a) and (b) - Return decision adopted in respect of a third-country national - Minor third-country national separated from parents in the event of return - Best interests of the child - Right to respect for family life)
(2023/C 216/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant: GS, represented by his parents

interested party: Vertreterin des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Operative part of the order

Article 5(a) and (b) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals
must be interpreted as requiring that the best interests of the child and the family life of that child be protected in proceedings leading to the adoption of a return decision in respect of a minor, and that it is not sufficient for that minor to be able to rely on those two protected interests in subsequent proceedings relating to the enforcement of that return decision in order to obtain a suspension of that enforcement, if appropriate.


(1)  OJ C 380, 3.10.2022.
INFORMATION NOTICE – PUBLIC CONSULTATION Entry into force of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Chile concerning amendments to Appendix I to the Agreement on Trade in Spirit Drinks and Aromatised Drinks (Annex VI), annexed to the Association Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part 2023/C 56/07
Date: 2023-02-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Chile, EU Member State, association agreement (EU), designation of origin, originating product, product designation, revision of an agreement, spirits, trade agreement (EU)








C_2023056EN.01001701.xml










15.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/17






INFORMATION NOTICE – PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Entry into force of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Chile concerning amendments to Appendix I to the Agreement on Trade in Spirit Drinks and Aromatised Drinks (Annex VI), annexed to the Association Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part
(2023/C 56/07)
The Republic of Chile has notified its approval of the adoption of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Chile concerning amendments to Appendix I to the Agreement on Trade in Spirit Drinks and Aromatised Drinks (Annex VI), annexed to the Association Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part.
This Agreement therefore enters into force on 9 March 2023 (1).


(1)  OJ C 287, 28.7.2022, p. 4.
Case C-81/23, FCA Italy and FPT Industrial: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 February 2023 — MA v FCA Italy SpA and FPT Industrial SpA
Date: 2023-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability proceedings, damages, diesel engine, establishment, jurisdiction, motor vehicle, private international law, purchase, residence, vehicle parts








C_2023179EN.01001501.xml










22.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 February 2023 — MA v FCA Italy SpA and FPT Industrial SpA
(Case C-81/23, FCA Italy and FPT Industrial)
(2023/C 179/24)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: MA

Respondents in the appeal on a point of law: FCA Italy SpA, FPT Industrial SpA

Question referred

Must point 2 of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012’) be interpreted as meaning that, in an action for tortious liability against the developer of a diesel engine with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (2) on type approval, the place where the harmful event occurred in a case where the vehicle was bought by the applicant domiciled in Member State B (in this case: Austria) from a third party established in Member State C (in this case: Germany) is






a)


the place where the contract was concluded;










b)


the place where the vehicle was delivered, or










c)


the place where the physical defect constituting the damage occurred and, therefore, the place where the vehicle is normally used?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).