do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-234/25: Action brought on 9 April 2025 – Deutsche Transnational Trustee Corporation v EUIPO – dennree (GUST.)
Date: 2025-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cereal product, cheese, confectionery, confectionery product, foodstuff, frozen product, prepared foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202502915EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2915


2.6.2025






Action brought on 9 April 2025 – Deutsche Transnational Trustee Corporation v EUIPO – dennree (GUST.)


(Case T-234/25)

(C/2025/2915)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Deutsche Transnational Trustee Corporation, Inc. (Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada) (represented by: C. Bey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: dennree GmbH (Töpen, 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 figurative mark ‘GUST.’ – International registration designating the European Union No 1 645 072
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2025 in Case R 1505/2024-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the Office to bear all the costs before the Court, the Board of Appeal and the necessary costs of the Applicant in these proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;










—


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/2025/2915/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11899 – SRI / DUNLOP TIRE BUSINESS)
Date: 2025-04-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Europe, North America, Oceania, economic concentration, industrial product, marketing, merger control, rubber industry, sports equipment








C_202502300EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2300


15.4.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11899 – SRI / DUNLOP TIRE BUSINESS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/2300)

On 9 April 2025, 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 32025M11899. 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/2025/2300/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-329/23: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2025 – Czech Republic v Commission (Own resources of the European Union – Financial liability of the Member States – Obligation for Member States to make own resources available to the Commission – Payment to the Commission of amounts corresponding to non-recovered own resources – Import duties – Imports of textiles, footwear and sunglasses from Asia – Customs value – No undervaluation – No obligation to lodge a security before release – Unjustified enrichment on the part of the European Union)
Date: 2025-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Asia, CCT duties, Member States' contribution, clothing industry, customs duties, customs valuation, footwear industry, import (EU), textile product








C_202502855EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2855


2.6.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2025 – Czech Republic v Commission


(Case T-329/23)
                (1)

(Own resources of the European Union - Financial liability of the Member States - Obligation for Member States to make own resources available to the Commission - Payment to the Commission of amounts corresponding to non-recovered own resources - Import duties - Imports of textiles, footwear and sunglasses from Asia - Customs value - No undervaluation - No obligation to lodge a security before release - Unjustified enrichment on the part of the European Union)
(C/2025/2855)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and L. Halajová, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and M. Ilkova and by T. Materne, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, the Czech Republic seeks repayment of the sum of 60 435 306,39 Czech koruny (CZK) (approximately EUR 2 409 000) paid as own resources of the European Union.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Orders the European Commission to repay to the Czech Republic the sum of 60 435 306,39 Czech koruny (CZK) paid as own resources of the European Union.










2.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 286, 14.8.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2855/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2024/1183 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 as regards establishing the European Digital Identity Framework (OJ L, 2024/1183, 30.4.2024)
Date: 2025-04-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: computer crime, data processing, data protection, digital single market, digital technology, electronic signature, information security, provision of services




L_202590317EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
L series













2025/90317


9.4.2025






Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2024/1183 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 as regards establishing the European Digital Identity Framework
(
Official Journal of the European Union L, 2024/1183, 30 April 2024
)







1.


On page 21, Article 1, point 5, in the new Article 5a(16), point (b):











for:









‘(b)


enable privacy preserving techniques which ensure unlikeability, where the attestation of attributes does not require the identification of the user.’,















read:









‘(b)


enable privacy preserving techniques which ensure unlinkability, where the attestation of attributes does not require the identification of the user.’.














2.


On page 48, Article 1, point 48:











for:









‘(a)


paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:

“2.   The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 5c(7), Article 24(4b) and Article 30(4) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from 17 September 2014.


3.   The delegation of power referred to in Article 5c(7), Article 24(4b) and Article 30(4) may be revoked …”
;









(b)


paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:

“5.   A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 5c(7), Article 24(4b) or Article 30(4) shall enter into force …”’
;



,











read:









‘(a)


paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:

“2.   The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 5c(8), Article 24(4b) and Article 30(4) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from 17 September 2014.


3.   The delegation of power referred to in Article 5c(8), Article 24(4b) and Article 30(4) may be revoked …”
;









(b)


paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:

“5.   A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 5c(8), Article 24(4b) or Article 30(4) shall enter into force …”;’.











ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1183/corrigendum/2025-04-09/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Case T-209/24: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2025 – Allsize v EUIPO – Sjóklæðagerðin (North 56-4) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark North 56-4 – Earlier international registration designating the European Union – Word mark 66°NORTH – Relative ground for invalidity – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2025-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202502861EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2861


2.6.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2025 – Allsize v EUIPO – Sjóklæðagerðin (North 56-4)


(Case T-209/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark North 56-4 - Earlier international registration designating the European Union - Word mark 66°NORTH - Relative ground for invalidity - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2025/2861)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Allsize Company A/S (Aarhus, Denmark) (represented by: M. Hansen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sjóklæðagerðin hf. (Garðabær, Iceland) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

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 21 February 2024 (Case R 1991/2023-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Allsize Company A/S to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 3484, 10.6.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2861/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-565/22: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2025 – HF v Parliament (Civil service – Members of the contract staff – Psychological harassment – Administrative investigation – Article 12a of the Staff Regulations – Request for assistance – Rejection of the request – Article 24 of the Staff Regulations – Advisory Committee on Harassment and its Prevention at the Workplace – Impartiality – Principle of good administration – Error of assessment – Liability – Non-material damage)
Date: 2025-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: advisory committee (EU), disciplinary proceedings, harassment at work, indemnification, legal aid, psychological harassment, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_202502853EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2853


2.6.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2025 – HF v Parliament


(Case T-565/22)
                (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Psychological harassment - Administrative investigation - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Rejection of the request - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Advisory Committee on Harassment and its Prevention at the Workplace - Impartiality - Principle of good administration - Error of assessment - Liability - Non-material damage)
(C/2025/2853)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: HF (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Boytha, M. Windisch and A. Krachler, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, the annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 3 November 2021 rejecting the request for assistance which she submitted following the psychological harassment to which she claims to have been subjected and, second, compensation for the non-material damage which she claims to have suffered as a result of that harassment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders HF and the European Parliament to each bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 408, 24.10.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2853/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-469/24: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2025 – Lorenz Switzerland v EUIPO – Lajkonik Alkohole Łukasz Bylica (Piekarnia i Kawiarnia Lajkonik) (EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark Piekarnia i Kawiarnia Lajkonik – Lack of genuine use of the mark – Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2025-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beer, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_202502863EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2863


2.6.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2025 – Lorenz Switzerland v EUIPO – Lajkonik Alkohole Łukasz Bylica (Piekarnia i Kawiarnia Lajkonik)


(Case T-469/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Piekarnia i Kawiarnia Lajkonik - Lack of genuine use of the mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2025/2863)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lorenz Switzerland AG, successor in law to Leithart AG Schweiz (Appenzell, Switzerland) (represented by: T. Wittwer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lajkonik Alkohole Łukasz Bylica (Wieliczka, Poland) (represented by: P. Dykas, lawyer)

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 July 2024 (Case R 1916/2023-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Lorenz Switzerland AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Lajkonik Alkohole Łukasz Bylica;










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/6268, 28.10.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2863/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-1153/23: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2025 – Ghiassi v EUIPO – Hersill (VITAE) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark VITAE – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Lack of descriptive character – Distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2025-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202502858EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2858


2.6.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2025 – Ghiassi v EUIPO – Hersill (VITAE)


(Case T-1153/23)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark VITAE - Absolute grounds for invalidity - Lack of descriptive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2025/2858)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ardeshir Ghiassi (Unna, Germany) (represented by: G. Vierkötter, 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: Hersill SL (Móstoles, Spain) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 October 2023 (Case R 2392/2022-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Ardeshir Ghiassi, in addition to bearing his own costs, to pay those incurred by Hersill SL;










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/1253, 12.2.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2858/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-275/25, Kolwager: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 9 April 2025 – Finanzamt B v A
Date: 2025-04-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, European official, capital transfer tax, gift, legal domicile, residence, tax collection








C_202503634EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3634


14.7.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 9 April 2025 – Finanzamt B v A


(Case C-275/25, Kolwager
                (1)
)

(C/2025/3634)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt B

Applicant and respondent on a point of law: A

Questions referred







1.


Does the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 13 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (2) apply to the levying of gift tax?










2.


If the first question referred is answered in the affirmative: Does that provision preclude an official or other servant of the Union who establishes his or her residence in the territory of a Member State other than his or her Member State of origin solely by reason of the performance of his or her duties in the service of the Union from establishing an additional domicile for tax purposes in a Member State other than the State in which he or she performs his or her duties if, at the same time, he or she retains an actual residence in the State in which he or she performs his or her duties?






(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  
            OJ 2012 C 326, p. 266.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3634/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)