do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-13/24: Action brought on 10 January 2024 — Pernod Ricard v EUIPO — West End Drinks (The King of Soho)
Date: 2024-01-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, spirits, trade-mark law








C_202401556EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1556


26.2.2024





Action brought on 10 January 2024 — Pernod Ricard v EUIPO — West End Drinks (The King of Soho)
(Case T-13/24)
(C/2024/1556)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Pernod Ricard (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and S. Vandezande, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: West End Drinks Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark The King of Soho — Application for registration No 17 931 478

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2023 amending the decision adopted on 19 June 2023 in Case R 1380/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;










—


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










—


Infringement of Article 27(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;










—


Infringement of Article 102 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1556/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-505/22: Judgment of the General Court of 10 January 2024 — Levantur v EUIPO — Fantasia Hotels & Resorts (LUXURY BAHIA PRINCIPE FANTASIA Don Pablo Collection) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative trade mark LUXURY BAHIA PRINCIPE FANTASIA Don Pablo Collection — Earlier national trade name FANTASIA HOTELES — Relative ground for invalidity — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)
Date: 2024-01-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, travel agency








C_202402021EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/2021


18.3.2024





Judgment of the General Court of 10 January 2024 — Levantur v EUIPO — Fantasia Hotels & Resorts (LUXURY BAHIA PRINCIPE FANTASIA Don Pablo Collection)
(Case T-505/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative trade mark LUXURY BAHIA PRINCIPE FANTASIA Don Pablo Collection - Earlier national trade name FANTASIA HOTELES - Relative ground for invalidity - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)
(C/2024/2021)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Levantur, SA (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, E. Armero Lavie, C. Caballero Pastor and J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, J. Ivanauskas and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Fantasia Hotels & Resorts, SL (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: J. Vicente Martínez and J. Erdozain López, 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 20 May 2022 (Case R 1973/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Levantur, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Fantasia Hotels & Resorts, SL.






(1)  
            OJ C 380, 3.10.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2021/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-12/24: Action brought on 10 January 2024 — Ferring Pharmaceuticals v Commission
Date: 2024-01-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: drug surveillance, generic drug, market approval, pharmaceutical product








C_202402167EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/2167


25.3.2024





Action brought on 10 January 2024 — Ferring Pharmaceuticals v Commission
(Case T-12/24)
(C/2024/2167)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S (Kastrup, Denmark) (represented by: F. Pochart and E. Mignon, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application for annulment admissible and well-founded;










—


annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 6669 final of 29 September 2023 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) for ‘Degarelix Accord — degarelix acetate’, a medicinal product for human use, in its entirety (OJ C/2023/298);










—


order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission committed a violation of essential procedural requirements by deviating from the European guidelines on bioequivalence without justification and by relying on a draft foreign guideline instead.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by allowing the applicant to the generic medicinal product not to provide the necessary bioequivalence studies.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004, L 136, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2167/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)