do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-1099/23: Action brought on 24 November 2023 — Rodríguez Ruiz v EUIPO — Scherer (LEMOON)
Date: 2023-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202400964EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/964


29.1.2024





Action brought on 24 November 2023 — Rodríguez Ruiz v EUIPO — Scherer (LEMOON)
(Case T-1099/23)
(C/2024/964)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Ruiz (Albelda de Iregua, Spain) (represented by: J. Pérez Itarte, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Markus Scherer (Mannheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark LEMOON — Application for registration No 18 183 606

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 July 2023 in Case R 352/2023-5

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul/revoke the contested decision and refuse registration of European Union trade mark No 18 183 606 LEMOON for the designated goods in Classes 32 and 33;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener (if he appears and intervenes in the present action) to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the Opposition Division of the Operations Department and before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO;










—


in the alternative, and in the event that this action is dismissed in part by the General Court, revoke the contested decision in so far as it orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred in the administrative proceedings before EUIPO (EUR 1 570).





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 68, 94 and 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and lack of defence;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/964/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-1103/23: Action brought on 24 November 2023 — Ferrari v EUIPO — Hesse (TESTAROSSA)
Date: 2023-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, engine, motor car, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_202400759EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/759


22.1.2024





Action brought on 24 November 2023 — Ferrari v EUIPO — Hesse (TESTAROSSA)
(Case T-1103/23)
(C/2024/759)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Ferrari SpA (Modena, Italy) (represented by: K. Muraro, G. Russo and C. Comolli Acquaviva, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kurt Hesse (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark TESTAROSSA — International registration designating the European Union No 910 752

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2023 in joined Case R 334/2017-5 and R 343/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision; or










—


alter the contested decision to the extent that genuine use of the trade mark at issue is shown for 
                     ‘automobiles’
                   and 
                     ‘structural a[n]d replacement parts, components and accessories (of automobiles) all included in this class; engines’
                  ;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the costs of the present proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/759/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-1106/23: Action brought on 24 November 2023 — Vinokurov v Council
Date: 2023-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, trade restriction








C_202401868EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1868


11.3.2024





Action brought on 24 November 2023 — Vinokurov v Council
(Case T-1106/23)
(C/2024/1868)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Alexander Semenovich Vinokurov (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: É. Épron, J.-F. Quievy and C. Gimbert, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the action for annulment to be admissible and well-founded;










—


declare Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1094 of 5 June 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine to be inapplicable to the applicant on grounds of unlawfulness;










—


declare Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1098 of 5 June 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1998 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses to be inapplicable to the applicant on grounds of unlawfulness;










—


order the annulment in part of Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023 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 applicant;










—


order the annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023 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 applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs and expenses of the proceedings;










—


reserve to the applicant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea, raising a plea of illegality.










2.


Second plea, alleging a manifest error of assessment.










3.


Third plea, alleging a failure to observe the principle of proportionality.










4.


Fourth plea, alleging a failure to observe the principle of legal certainty.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1868/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-1117/23: Action brought on 24 November 2023 — Usmanov v Council
Date: 2023-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russo-Ukrainian issue, economic sanctions, equal treatment, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, rights of the defence








C_202400768EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/768


22.1.2024





Action brought on 24 November 2023 — Usmanov v Council
(Case T-1117/23)
(C/2024/768)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Alisher Usmanov (Tashkent, Uzbekistan) (represented by: D. Rovetta, M. Campa, M. Moretto, V. Villante and M. Pirovano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






1)


Annul






—


Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1), and










—


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2);














2)


Order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging distortion of evidence and of the relevant facts and lack or reliability, specificity and probative value of the evidence relied upon by the Council.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the breach of the right to effective judicial protection as well as of the duty to state reasons by the Council.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of fundamental rights to private life and property.






(1)  
            OJ 2023, L 226, p. 104.

(2)  
            OJ 2023, L 226, p. 3.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/768/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11232 – PETRONORD SCANDINAVIA / PS ENERGI)
Date: 2023-11-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Sweden, economic concentration, energy industry, fuel oil, holding company, lubricants, merger control, motor fuel, retail trade, sale, wood product








C_202301497EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1497


13.12.2023






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11232 – PETRONORD SCANDINAVIA / PS ENERGI)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2023/1497)

On 24 November 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 (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). 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 32023M11232. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1497/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-1116/23: Action brought on 24 November 2023 — Khudaverdyan v Council
Date: 2023-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, indemnification, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_202401870EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1870


11.3.2024





Action brought on 24 November 2023 — Khudaverdyan v Council
(Case T-1116/23)
(C/2024/1870)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Tigran Khudaverdyan (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, F. Bélot, A. Guillerme and M. Brésart, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare unlawful the listing criterion laid down in Articles 1(1)(e) and 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP and in Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 as amended, respectively, by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1094 of 5 June 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, and by Council Regulation (EU) 2023/1089 of 5 June 2023 amending 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 refers to leading businesspersons operating in Russia or businesspersons, legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine;










—


order the annulment of






—


Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023 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 maintains the applicant’s name in the annex thereto while altering the grounds for his listing, and










—


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023 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 maintains the applicant’s name in the annex thereto while altering the grounds for his listing;














—


order the Council to pay EUR 100 000 on a provisional basis in respect of the damage suffered by the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-1105/23, Abramovich v Council.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1870/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)