do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-583/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Bakhanovich v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources to which the freezing of funds and economic resources and the ban on entry into or transit through European Union territory applies — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Collective nature of the sanction — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Proportionality)
Date: 2023-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, freezing of assets, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality








C_2023252EN.01004202.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/42






Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Bakhanovich v Council
(Case T-583/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources to which the freezing of funds and economic resources and the ban on entry into or transit through European Union territory applies - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Collective nature of the sanction - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Proportionality)
(2023/C 252/48)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Aliaksandr Bakhanovich (Brest, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Limonet and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 70), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 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. 3), to the extent that those two acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders Mr Aliaksandr Bakhanovich to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.
Case T-227/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cylus Cyber Security v EUIPO — Cylance (CYLUS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CYLUS — Earlier EU word mark CYLANCE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2023-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, carrier, data processing, information security, rail transport, registered trade mark, security services, software, trade-mark law, underground railway








C_2023252EN.01004601.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/46






Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cylus Cyber Security v EUIPO — Cylance (CYLUS)
(Case T-227/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CYLUS - Earlier EU word mark CYLANCE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2023/C 252/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Cylus Cyber Security Ltd (Tel-Aviv, Israel) (represented by: S. Bailey, lawyer)

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: Cylance, Inc. (Irvine, California, United States) (represented by B. Levy, 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 21 February 2022 (Case R 692/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Cylus Cyber Security Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.
Case T-143/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — OP v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Survivor’s pension — Refusal to grant — Surviving spouse — Eligibility conditions — Duration of the marriage — Plea of illegality — Article 80, first paragraph, of the Staff Regulations — Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Orphans’ pension — Refusal to grant — Concept of ‘dependent child’ — Error of law)
Date: 2023-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, dependant, disabled person, marriage, staff regulations (EU), survivor's benefit, widowed person








C_2023252EN.01004501.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/45






Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — OP v Parliament
(Case T-143/22) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Survivor’s pension - Refusal to grant - Surviving spouse - Eligibility conditions - Duration of the marriage - Plea of illegality - Article 80, first paragraph, of the Staff Regulations - Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Orphans’ pension - Refusal to grant - Concept of ‘dependent child’ - Error of law)
(2023/C 252/52)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: OP (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Alver, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 7 June 2021, in so far as it rejects her application for a survivor’s pension on account of the death of her husband, a former official of the Parliament and, on behalf of her son A, annulment of that decision in so far as it rejects her application for an orphans’ pension for their son who has a disability.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 7 June 2021 in so far as it refuses to grant A an orphans’ pension;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OP;










4.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.
Joined Cases T-218/22 and 219/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Roxtec and Wallmax v EUIPO — Wallmax and Roxtec (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative trade mark representing a blue square containing eight concentric black circles — absolute ground of invalidity — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2023-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electric cable, metal product, piping, plastics industry, registered trade mark, rubber industry, trade-mark law, tube








C_2023261EN.01003202.xml










24.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/32






Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Roxtec and Wallmax v EUIPO — Wallmax and Roxtec (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles)
(Joined Cases T-218/22 and 219/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative trade mark representing a blue square containing eight concentric black circles - absolute ground of invalidity - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2023/C 261/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant in Case T-218/22: Roxtec AB (Karlskrona, Sweden) (represented by: J. Olsson and J. Adamsson, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-219/22: Wallmax Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Ferrari, L. Goglia and G. Rapaccini, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court in Case T-218/22: Wallmax (Milan) (represented by: F. Ferrari, L. Goglia and C. Rapaccini, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court in Case T-219/22: Roxtec (Karlskrona) (represented by: J. Olsson and J. Adamsson, lawyers)

Re:

By their actions based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant in Case T-218/22 and the applicant in Case T-219/22 seek annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 February 2022 (Case R 1093/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders Roxtec AB, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Wallmax Srl to bear their own costs in Case T-218/22;










3.


Orders Wallmax to pay the costs in Case T-219/22.






(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.
Case T-519/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (FITNESS) (EU trade mark — Procedure for the revocation of decisions or the cancellation of entries — Revocation of a decision containing an obvious error attributable to EUIPO — Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No obvious error)
Date: 2023-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cereal product, egg, fruit, milk product, non-alcoholic beverage, protein products, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vegetable








C_2023261EN.01003501.xml










24.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/35






Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (FITNESS)
(Case T-519/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Procedure for the revocation of decisions or the cancellation of entries - Revocation of a decision containing an obvious error attributable to EUIPO - Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No obvious error)
(2023/C 261/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht, and A.-C. Salger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: European Food SA (Păntășești, Romania) (represented by I. Speciac, lawyer)

Re:

By its action on the basis of 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 27 June 2022 (Case R 894/2020-1).

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 27 June 2022 (Case R 894/2020-1);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Société des produits Nestlé SA;










3.


Orders European Food SA to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 398, 17.10.2022.
Case T-239/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cherusci v EUIPO — LexDellmeier (RIALTO) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark RIALTO — No genuine use of the trade mark — No proper reasons for non-use — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2023-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, data processing, medical device, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2023252EN.01004602.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/46






Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cherusci v EUIPO — LexDellmeier (RIALTO)
(Case T-239/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark RIALTO - No genuine use of the trade mark - No proper reasons for non-use - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2023/C 252/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Cherusci Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Reinhard, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: LexDellmeier Intellectual Property Law Firm (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Bogatz, Y. Stone and C. Dory, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 February 2022 (Case R 695/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Cherusci Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.
Case T-33/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Vallegre v EUIPO — Joseph Phelps Vineyards (PORTO INSÍGNIA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark PORTO INSÍGNIA — Earlier EU word mark INSIGNIA — 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: 2023-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, fortified wine, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023261EN.01003002.xml










24.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/30






Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Vallegre v EUIPO — Joseph Phelps Vineyards (PORTO INSÍGNIA)
(Case T-33/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark PORTO INSÍGNIA - Earlier EU word mark INSIGNIA - 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 261/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA (Sabrosa, Portugal) (represented by: E. Armero Lavie, G. Marín Raigal and J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Joseph Phelps Vineyards LLC (Saint Helena, California, United States) (represented by: S. Reinhard, lawyer)

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 26 October 2021 (Case R 894/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.
Case T-368/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cassa Centrale v EUIPO — Bankia (BANQUÌ) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark BANQUÌ — Earlier EU figurative mark Bankia — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Distinctive character of the earlier mark)
Date: 2023-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, banking, business management, database, financial services, insurance, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2023261EN.01003401.xml










24.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/34






Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cassa Centrale v EUIPO — Bankia (BANQUÌ)
(Case T-368/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark BANQUÌ - Earlier EU figurative mark Bankia - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Distinctive character of the earlier mark)
(2023/C 261/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Cassa Centrale Banca — Credito Cooperativo Italiano SpA (Trente, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer, G. Locurto and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

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

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

Re:

By its action under 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 11 April 2022 (Case R 1318/2021-1).

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 11 April 2022 (Case R 1318/2021-1) in so far as it rejected the appeal brought by Cassa Centrale Banca — Credito Cooperativo Italiano SpA in that the application for registration of the word mark BANQUÌ as an EU mark designated goods in Class 9 within the meaning of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders Cassa Centrale Banca — Credito Cooperativo Italiano and EUIPO each to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 303, 8.8.2022.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 6 June 2023 2023/C 199/03
Date: 2023-06-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2023199EN.01000401.xml










7.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 199/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

6 June 2023
(2023/C 199/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0683 




JPY


Japanese yen


149,09 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4494 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86103 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,6215 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9698 




ISK


Iceland króna


151,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,8775 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


23,520 




HUF


Hungarian forint


368,63 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4915 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9592 




TRY


Turkish lira


22,9762 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6038 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4342 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3777 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7579 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4411 




KRW


South Korean won


1 388,93 




ZAR


South African rand


20,5593 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6040 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 891,22 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9222 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,064 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,161 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,2538 




MXN


Mexican peso


18,6436 




INR


Indian rupee


88,2295 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-581/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Skryba v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources to which the freezing of funds and economic resources and the ban on entry into and transit through European Union territory applies — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Collective nature of a sanction — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Proportionality)
Date: 2023-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, freezing of assets, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality








C_2023252EN.01004101.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/41






Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Skryba v Council
(Case T-581/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources to which the freezing of funds and economic resources and the ban on entry into and transit through European Union territory applies - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Collective nature of a sanction - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Proportionality)
(2023/C 252/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Siarheï Skryba (Marialivo, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Limonet and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 70), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 221/997 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. 3), to the extent that those two acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Siarheï Skryba to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.
Case T-63/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Brooks England v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (BROOKS ENGLAND) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BROOKS ENGLAND — Earlier EU word mark BROOKS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2023-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, sports equipment, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2023261EN.01003201.xml










24.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/32






Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Brooks England v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (BROOKS ENGLAND)
(Case T-63/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark BROOKS ENGLAND - Earlier EU word mark BROOKS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2023/C 261/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Brooks England Ltd (Smethwick, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Feltrinelli and K. Manhaeve, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Brooks Sports, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by C. Spintig and S. Pietzcker, lawyers)

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 22 November 2021 (Case R 2432/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Brooks England Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.