do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-20/23: Order of the General Court of 15 April 2024 – Japan Tobacco v EUIPO – Dunhill Tobacco of London (FLOW FILTER)
Date: 2024-04-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, smoking, tobacco, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_202403471EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3471


10.6.2024






Order of the General Court of 15 April 2024 – Japan Tobacco v EUIPO – Dunhill Tobacco of London (FLOW FILTER)


(Case T-20/23)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark FLOW FILTER - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Lack of descriptive character - Lack of customary character - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(C/2024/3471)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Japan Tobacco, Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dunhill Tobacco of London Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Fowler, I. Junkar and B. Worbes, lawyers)

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 25 October 2022 (Case R 1774/2021-5).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Japan Tobacco, Inc. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Dunhill Tobacco of London Ltd.










3.


The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 83, 6.3.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3471/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-260/24, LUKOIL Bulgaria: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-oblast (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 April 2024 – LUKOIL Bulgaria EOOD v Komisia za zashtita na konkurentsiata
Date: 2024-04-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: control of restrictive practices, dominant position, market, national competent authority, oil industry, presumption of innocence, principle of legal certainty, rights of the defence, single market, substitute product








C_202403748EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3748


24.6.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-oblast (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 April 2024 – ‘LUKOIL Bulgaria’ EOOD v Komisia za zashtita na konkurentsiata


(Case C-260/24, LUKOIL Bulgaria)

(C/2024/3748)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-oblast

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:
            ‘LUKOIL Bulgaria’ EOOD

Defendant: Komisia za zashtita na konkurentsiata

Questions referred









1.


Must Article 102 TFEU and the principles of the rights of the defence, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, including the presumption of innocence, be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an unlawful margin squeeze, the relevant markets (the markets in which the infringement was committed) are two vertically related markets, namely an upstream market and a downstream market, and that it is precisely in relation to those two relevant markets that the competition authority is required, when making the accusation and adopting the final decision, to make statements of fact relating to the size of those markets, the participants in those markets and the market shares of those participants, including the market shares of the undertaking to which it imputes a dominant position on those markets?













2.


Must Article 102 TFEU, interpreted in conjunction with the principles of the rights of the defence, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, including the presumption of innocence, be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings under Article 102 TFEU, that article does not allow products between which there is neither demand-side nor supply-side substitutability to be included in one and the same national product market, as the KZK did in the present case by including diesel fuel and A-95H petrol in a single product market for motor fuels?













3.


If it is permissible to include in a single national product market motor fuels between which there is no demand-side or supply-side substitutability, is it permissible not to include in the product market for motor fuels the third main motor fuel in the national market, namely propane/butane gas (LPG), which has a market share in the national market that is equal to the market share of petrol?






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3748/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-202/24: Action brought on 15 April 2024 – Piping Hot v EUIPO – Pripd (SEA BY PIPING HOT)
Date: 2024-04-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, sport, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_202403480EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3480


10.6.2024






Action brought on 15 April 2024 – Piping Hot v EUIPO – Pripd


(SEA BY PIPING HOT)


(Case T-202/24)

(C/2024/3480)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Piping Hot Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: J. Mietzel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pripd LLC (Ronkonkoma, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark SEA BY PIPING HOT – Application for registration No 18 536 921
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2024 in Case R 1038/2023-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare the registration of the mark at issue as being possible in respect of all contested goods and services;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and of the opposition proceedings.





Plea in law







—


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/2024/3480/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates – 12 April 2024
Date: 2024-04-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202402229EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2229


15.4.2024






Euro exchange rates (1)


            12 April 2024
         
(C/2024/2229)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0652 




JPY


Japanese yen


163,16 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4603 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85424 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,5699 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9716 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,5870 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,337 




HUF


Hungarian forint


391,63 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2603 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9717 




TRY


Turkish lira


34,4334 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6413 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4643 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3478 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7872 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4478 




KRW


South Korean won


1 469,79 




ZAR


South African rand


19,9907 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7094 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 171,88 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0810 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,256 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


38,853 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,4442 




MXN


Mexican peso


17,5982 




INR


Indian rupee


88,9140 






(1)  
            Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2229/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11445 – CARLYLE / GTCR / RESONETICS)
Date: 2024-04-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, health technology, investment company, medical device, merger control








C_202402819EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2819


19.4.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11445 – CARLYLE / GTCR / RESONETICS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/2819)

On 15 April 2024, 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 32024M11445. 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/2024/2819/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11288 – TAPESTRY / CAPRI)
Date: 2024-04-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: clock and watch industry, clothing industry, cosmetic product, economic concentration, footwear industry, luxury products industry, merger control








C_202403857EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3857


17.6.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11288 – TAPESTRY / CAPRI)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/3857)

On 15 April 2024, 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 32024M11288. 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/2024/3857/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)