do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-52/22: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2023 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie territoriale de la Marne en Champagne v EUIPO — Ambrosetti Group (TEHA) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the European Union figurative mark TEHA — Earlier national figurative mark tema — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Lack of genuine use of the mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Use in a form which differs in elements which alter the distinctive character of the trade mark — Article 15(1), second subparagraph, point (a), of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a), of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2023-05-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business management, business tourism, computer equipment, consultancy, financial services, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, updating of skills








C_2023223EN.01002301.xml










26.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/23






Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2023 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie territoriale de la Marne en Champagne v EUIPO — Ambrosetti Group (TEHA)
(Case T-52/22) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the European Union figurative mark TEHA - Earlier national figurative mark tema - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Lack of genuine use of the mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Use in a form which differs in elements which alter the distinctive character of the trade mark - Article 15(1), second subparagraph, point (a), of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a), of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2023/C 223/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Chambre de commerce et d’industrie territoriale de la Marne en Champagne (Châlons-en-Champagne, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ambrosetti Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Guglielmetti, lawyer)

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 23 November 2021 (Case R 837/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the chambre de commerce et d’industrie territoriale de la Marne en Champagne to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 128, 21.3.2022.
Case T-459/22: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2023 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Biolark (BIOLARK) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark BIOLARK — Earlier national word mark BIOPLAK — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2023-05-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023223EN.01002701.xml










26.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/27






Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2023 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Biolark (BIOLARK)
(Case T-459/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark BIOLARK - Earlier national word mark BIOPLAK - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2023/C 223/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Biolark, Inc. (San Diego, California, United States)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 April 2022 (Case R 1234/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Refuses the application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate made by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);










2.


Dismisses the action;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 340, 5.9.2022.
Case T-232/23: Action brought on 3 May 2023 — LW v Commission
Date: 2023-05-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, indemnification, principle of proportionality, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2023261EN.01003701.xml










24.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/37






Action brought on 3 May 2023 — LW v Commission
(Case T-232/23)
(2023/C 261/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: LW (represented by: S. Birenbaum-De Guchteneere and M. Tournay, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the appraisal report for the year 2020;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the appeal assessor dated 13 July 2022 that confirmed the appraisal report for the year 2020 and rejected the appeal of 11 March 2022 (registered under No 507857);










—


in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the appointing authority dated 24 January 2023 that rejected the complaint filed by a note dated 7 September 2022 (registered under No. R/422/22);










—


order compensation for the non-material damage suffered;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and the breach of Article 2(3) of Commission Decision C(2013) 8985 of 16 December 2013 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and implementing the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations (the ‘GIP’), Article 5, 6 and 7 of the GIP, manifest error of assessment, misuse of power and breach of the principle of good administration.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU, Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the duty to state reasons, manifest error and breach of the principle of good administration.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and of Article 1d(1) of the Staff Regulations, and breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials.