do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-25/22: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Canai Technology v EUIPO — Trend Fin (HE&ME) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark HE&ME — Earlier Benelux word mark ME — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2023-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023134EN.01001101.xml










17.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/11






Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Canai Technology v EUIPO — Trend Fin (HE&ME)
(Case T-25/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark HE&ME - Earlier Benelux word mark ME - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2023/C 134/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Canai Technology Co. Ltd (Guangzhou, China) (represented by: J.F. Gallego Jiménez, E. Sanz Valls, P. Bauzá Martínez, Y. Hernández Viñes and C. Marí Aguilar, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Trend Fin BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: F. Folmer, L. Bekke and T. de Haan, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 November 2021 (Case R 1390/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Canai Technology Co. Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.
Case T-552/21: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Worldwide Brands v EUIPO — Wan (CAMEL) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark CAMEL — Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 — Genuine use of the mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 — No assessment of some of the evidence submitted)
Date: 2023-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023134EN.01001002.xml










17.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/10






Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Worldwide Brands v EUIPO — Wan (CAMEL)
(Case T-552/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark CAMEL - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Genuine use of the mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 - No assessment of some of the evidence submitted)
(2023/C 134/13)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Worldwide Brands, Inc. Zweigniederlassung Deutschland (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero, R. Ahijón Lana and B. Tomás Acosta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Eric Guangyu Wan (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) (represented by: V. Piccarreta and G. Romanelli, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2021 (Case R 1548/2020-1).

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 5 July 2021 (Case R 1548/2020-1) in so far as it maintained the registration of the EU trade mark in respect of ‘shirts’;










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Worldwide Brands, Inc. Zweigniederlassung Deutschland in the course of the proceedings before the Court;










3.


Orders Mr Eric Guangyu Wan to bear the costs he has incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Court.






(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/504 of 1 March 2023 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Dalmatinska janjetina’ (PDO))
Date: 2023-03-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: County of Dubrovnik-Neretva, County of Lika-Senj, County of Split-Dalmatia, County of Zadar, County of Šibenik-Knin, Croatia, designation of origin, fresh meat, labelling, product designation, sheepmeat








L_2023070EN.01000501.xml










8.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 70/5








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2023/504
of 1 March 2023
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Dalmatinska janjetina’ (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia’s application to register the name ‘Dalmatinska janjetina’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Dalmatinska janjetina’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Dalmatinska janjetina’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register. The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.1 – Fresh meat (and offal), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 March 2023.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 341, 6.9.2022, p. 7.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case T-324/21: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Harley-Davidson Europe and Neovia Logistics Services International v Commission (Customs union — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Determination of the non-preferential origin of certain motorcycles manufactured by Harley-Davidson — Commission Implementing Decision requesting the revocation of decisions relating to binding origin information adopted by the national customs authorities — Concept of ‘processing or working operations which are not economically justified’ — Right to be heard)
Date: 2023-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, customs regulations, cycle and motorcycle industry, import (EU), originating product, rights of the defence, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2023134EN.01001001.xml










17.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/10






Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Harley-Davidson Europe and Neovia Logistics Services International v Commission
(Case T-324/21) (1)

(Customs union - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Determination of the non-preferential origin of certain motorcycles manufactured by Harley-Davidson - Commission Implementing Decision requesting the revocation of decisions relating to binding origin information adopted by the national customs authorities - Concept of ‘processing or working operations which are not economically justified’ - Right to be heard)
(2023/C 134/12)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Harley-Davidson Europe Ltd (Oxford, United Kingdom), Neovia Logistics Services International (Vilvoorde, Belgium) (represented by: O. van Baelen, G. Lebrun, lawyers, and T. Lyons KC)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and M. Kocjan, acting as Agents)

Re:

By the present action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/563 of 31 March 2021 on the validity of certain decisions relating to binding origin information (OJ 2021 L 119, p. 117), addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium. By that decision, the European Commission requested the revocation of two decisions concerning binding origin information, adopted in respect of Neovia on behalf of Harley-Davidson, concerning the importation into the European Union, through Belgium, of certain categories of motorcycle manufactured by Harley-Davidson in Thailand.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Harley-Davidson Europe Ltd and Neovia Logistics Services International to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.
Case C-123/23, Khan Yunis: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 1 March 2023 — N. A. K., E. A. K., Y. A. K v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Date: 2023-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, admissibility, international protection, right of asylum








C_2023261EN.01000203.xml










24.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/2






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 1 March 2023 — N. A. K., E. A. K., Y. A. K v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-123/23, Khan Yunis (1))
(2023/C 261/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Minden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: N. A. K., E. A. K., Y. A. K.

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Question referred

Must Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU, (2) read in conjunction with Article 2(q) of that directive, be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which an application for international protection lodged in that Member State is to be rejected as inadmissible if an application for international protection previously lodged in another Member State has been finally rejected by that other Member State as unfounded?


(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).
Case C-125/23, Unedic: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel d’Aix-En-Provence (France) lodged on 1 March 2023 — Association Unedic délégation AGS de Marseille v V, W, X, Y, Z, liquidator of company K
Date: 2023-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: employer, equal treatment, financial solvency, labour dispute, labour law, severance pay








C_2023189EN.01001701.xml










30.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel d’Aix-En-Provence (France) lodged on 1 March 2023 — Association Unedic délégation AGS de Marseille v V, W, X, Y, Z, liquidator of company K
(Case C-125/23, Unedic)
(2023/C 189/23)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel d’Aix-En-Provence

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Association Unedic délégation AGS de Marseille

Respondents: V, W, X, Y, Z, liquidator of company K

Questions referred







1.


Can Directive 2008/94/EC (1) be interpreted as allowing the guarantee institution to be precluded from taking over the guarantee of severance pay on termination of employment relationships where an employee declares the termination of his or her contract of employment after insolvency proceedings have been initiated?










2.


Is such an interpretation consistent with the wording and the purpose of that directive, and does it enable the results specified therein to be achieved?










3.


Does such an interpretation, based on the person who terminated the contract of employment during the period of insolvency, entail a difference in treatment between employees?










4.


If such a difference in treatment exists, is it objectively justified?






(1)  Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36).
Case C-94/22, Gruppo Mauro Saviola: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Gruppo Mauro Saviola Srl v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2023-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, Kyoto Protocol, electrical energy, energy production, tradeable emission permit








C_2023252EN.01001301.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/13






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Gruppo Mauro Saviola Srl v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto
(Case C-94/22, (1) Gruppo Mauro Saviola)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2023/C 252/14)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gruppo Mauro Saviola Srl

Defendants: Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto

Other parties: Rappresentanza della Commissione europea in Italia

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court, Lazio, Italy) by decision of 25 January 2022 is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.
Case T-217/22: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Lifestyle Equities v EUIPO — Greenwich Polo Club (GREENWICH POLO CLUB GPC 2002) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark GREENWICH POLO CLUB GPC 2002 — Earlier EU figurative mark BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB — Relative ground for invalidity — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2023-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023134EN.01001402.xml










17.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/14






Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Lifestyle Equities v EUIPO — Greenwich Polo Club (GREENWICH POLO CLUB GPC 2002)
(Case T-217/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark GREENWICH POLO CLUB GPC 2002 - Earlier EU figurative mark BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB - Relative ground for invalidity - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2023/C 134/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lifestyle Equities CV (Amstelveen, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Terpstra, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Greenwich Polo Club, Inc. (Greenwich, Connecticut, United States)

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 February 2022 (Case R 1063/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Lifestyle Equities CV and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own respective costs.






(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.
Case T-301/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain woven or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in China and Egypt — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Calculation of the normal value — Article 2(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Manifest error of assessment — Injury — Calculation of the undercutting margin)
Date: 2023-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Egypt, anti-dumping duty, economic value, glass fibre, import (EU), originating product, reduced price, textile product








C_2023134EN.01000701.xml










17.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/7






Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission
(Case T-301/20) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain woven or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in China and Egypt - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Calculation of the normal value - Article 2(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Manifest error of assessment - Injury - Calculation of the undercutting margin)
(2023/C 134/08)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE (Ain Sokhna, Egypt), Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE (Ain Sokhna) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Tech-Fab Europe eV (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and J. Beck, lawyers)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 of 1 April 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China and Egypt (OJ 2020 L 108, p. 1), in so far as it concerns them.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders Tech-Fab Europe eV to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Case T-540/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission (Subsidies — Imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/870 — Definitive countervailing duty and definitive collection of the provisional countervailing duty — Rights of the defence — Attributability of the subsidy — Manifest error of assessment — Import duty drawback scheme — Tax treatment of foreign exchange losses — Calculation of the undercutting margin)
Date: 2023-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Egypt, countervailing charge, customs drawback, foreign currency, glass fibre, import (EU), originating product, reduced price, rights of the defence








C_2023134EN.01000801.xml










17.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/8






Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission
(Case T-540/20) (1)

(Subsidies - Imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/870 - Definitive countervailing duty and definitive collection of the provisional countervailing duty - Rights of the defence - Attributability of the subsidy - Manifest error of assessment - Import duty drawback scheme - Tax treatment of foreign exchange losses - Calculation of the undercutting margin)
(2023/C 134/10)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE (Ain Sokhna, Egypt) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Kienapfel, G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Association des producteurs de fibres de verre européens (APFE) (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and J. Beck, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/870 of 24 June 2020 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and definitively collecting the provisional countervailing duty imposed on imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt, and levying the definitive countervailing duty on the registered imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt (OJ 2020 L 201, p. 10) in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Association des producteurs de fibres de verre européens (APFE) to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.