do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-387/25, Compagnie Européenne de Garanties et Cautions II: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal judiciaire de Montbéliard (France) lodged on 11 June 2025 – Compagnie Européenne de Garanties et Cautions (CEGC) v NL, SF
Date: 2025-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, consumer credit, consumer protection, deadline for payment, guarantee, real estate credit, termination of a contract, unfair terms of contract








C_202505200EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5200


6.10.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal judiciaire de Montbéliard (France) lodged on 11 June 2025 – Compagnie Européenne de Garanties et Cautions (CEGC) v NL, SF


(Case C-387/25, Compagnie Européenne de Garanties et Cautions II)

(C/2025/5200)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal judiciaire de Montbéliard

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Compagnie Européenne de Garanties et Cautions (CEGC)

Defendants: NL, SF

Questions referred







1.


Should Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, (1) and the principle of effectiveness of European Union law, be interpreted as allowing or requiring the non-application of a rule of national law prohibiting the court from assessing the unfair nature of a term in a credit agreement for immovable property, relating to the conditions for termination of the agreement by the bank in the event of default by the borrower, where, after the bank has declared the credit to be immediately repayable, the professional guarantor of that credit has paid the debt claimed by the bank from the consumer?










2.


Should Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, and the principle of effectiveness of European Union law, be interpreted as allowing or requiring a finding that a term in a credit agreement for immovable property providing that the consumer will pay the guarantee provided by a professional guarantor is unfair, where the consumer is not informed that the payment of the debt by the guarantor – in the event of default by the borrower – will result in the guarantor having personal recourse against the borrower that renders any breaches of national and EU consumer law committed by the lender unenforceable against the guarantor?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5200/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-593/23: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2025 – Nio v EUIPO – Audi (ES8) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark ES8 – Earlier EU word mark S8 – Relative ground for invalidity – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark – Articles 15 and 57 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64 of Regulation 2017/1001) – Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2025-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electricity storage device, general mechanical engineering, motor vehicle, registered trade mark, rental business, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_202504042EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4042


28.7.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2025 – Nio v EUIPO – Audi (ES8)


(Case T-593/23)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ES8 - Earlier EU word mark S8 - Relative ground for invalidity - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Articles 15 and 57 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(C/2025/4042)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Nio Holding Co. Ltd (Hefei, China) (represented by: T. Hogh Holub, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Audi AG (Ingolstadt, Germany) (represented by: C. Kessler, lawyer)

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 12 July 2023 (Case R 547/2023-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Nio Holding Co. Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2023/671, 13.11.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4042/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-505/24: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2025 – KenWave Solutions v EUIPO (DYNAMIC RESPONSE IMAGING) (EU trade mark – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark DYNAMIC RESPONSE IMAGING – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2025-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, public sanitation, registered trade mark, sewage sludge, trade-mark law








C_202503903EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3903


21.7.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2025 – KenWave Solutions v EUIPO (DYNAMIC RESPONSE IMAGING)


(Case T-505/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark DYNAMIC RESPONSE IMAGING - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(C/2025/3903)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: KenWave Solutions Inc. (Mississauga, Canada) (represented by: L. Andersen, lawyer)

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

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 23 July 2024 (Case R 939/2024-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders KenWave Solutions Inc. and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to each bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2024/6946, 25.11.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3903/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-462/24: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2025 – SHS v EUIPO (Pure Steel+) (EU trade mark – Application for EU figurative mark Pure Steel+ – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Assessment of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion – Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2025-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building industry, hand tool, machinery, metal product, metals, metalworking, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_202504048EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4048


28.7.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2025 – SHS v EUIPO (Pure Steel+)


(Case T-462/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Pure Steel+ - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Assessment of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(C/2025/4048)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: SHS – Stahl-Holding-Saar GmbH & Co. KGaA (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: J. Meyer, lawyer)

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

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 19 June 2024 (Case R 190/2024-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders SHS – Stahl-Holding-Saar GmbH & Co. KGaA to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2024/6110, 21.10.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4048/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.12008 – REITAN RETAIL / NORWEGIAN / STRAWBERRY / SPENN)
Date: 2025-06-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Northern Europe, computer system, consultancy, customers, economic concentration, foodstuff, information service, merger control, motor fuel, retail trade








C_202503457EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3457


24.6.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.12008 – REITAN RETAIL / NORWEGIAN / STRAWBERRY / SPENN)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/3457)

On 11 June 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 32025M12008. 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/2025/3457/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-383/25, Keritaly: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia – Sezione staccata di Brescia (Italy) lodged on 11 June 2025 – Keritaly SpA v Provincia di Mantova and Others
Date: 2025-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental impact, industrial pollution, prevention of pollution, reduction of gas emissions








C_202504581EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4581


25.8.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia – Sezione staccata di Brescia (Italy) lodged on 11 June 2025 – Keritaly SpA v Provincia di Mantova and Others


(Case C-383/25, Keritaly)

(C/2025/4581)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Keritaly SpA

Defendants: Provincia di Mantova, Agenzia Regionale Protezione Ambiente (ARPA) – Lombardia, Agenzia di Tutela della Salute (ATS) Val Padana, Comune di Gonzaga

Question referred

Must Article 20(2) of Directive 2010/75/EU (1) be interpreted as precluding a national rule (such as that in force in Italy pursuant to Article 29-novies, paragraph 1, of decreto legislativo 152/2006 (Legislative Decree No 152/2006)), which provides that, following the communication by which the operator informs the competent authority of a planned change to its installation – which it classifies as non-substantial – where the competent authority has not responded after a period of 60 days has elapsed the change is, in any event, tacitly authorised, even if it subsequently appears to be a substantial change?


(1)  Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (recast) (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 17).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4581/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Notice for the attention of certain entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine
Date: 2025-06-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, territorial dispute, territorial law








C_202503331EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3331


11.6.2025






Notice for the attention of certain entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine
(C/2025/3331)

The following information is brought to the attention of entities appearing in Annex IX of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP (1) and in Annex XV of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (2).
The Council is envisaging maintaining the restrictive measures concerning those entities.
The entities concerned are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the information related to the maintaining of restrictive measures before 19 June 2025
          to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu







(1)  
            OJ L 229, 31.7.2014, p. 13.

(2)  
            OJ L 229, 31.7.2014, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3331/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-352/24: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2025 – CeramicSpeed Sport v EUIPO – Golec (OSPW System) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark OSPW System – Absolute ground for invalidity – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2025-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, bearing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, two-wheeled vehicle








C_202504045EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4045


28.7.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2025 – CeramicSpeed Sport v EUIPO – Golec (OSPW System)


(Case T-352/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark OSPW System - Absolute ground for invalidity - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)
(C/2025/4045)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: CeramicSpeed Sport A/S (Holstebro, Denmark) (represented by: K. Kvistgaard-Aaholm, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Marcin Golec (London, United Kingdom) (represented by K. Muraro, G. Russo and C. Comolli Acquaviva, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the partial annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 May 2024 (Case R 1782/2023-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders CeramicSpeed Sport A/S, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by Mr Marcin Golec;










3.


Declares that the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2024/5118, 26.8.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4045/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Decision (EU) 2025/1185 of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 11 June 2025 appointing Judges to the General Court
Date: 2025-06-11
Institutions: Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Subjects: General Court (EU), appointment of members, member of the Court of Justice (EU)








L_202501185EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
L series













2025/1185


12.6.2025







            DECISION (EU) 2025/1185 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
         
of 11 June 2025
         
appointing Judges to the General Court


THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 254 and 255 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The terms of office of 26 Judges of the General Court are due to expire on 31 August 2025. Appointments to those posts should therefore be made for the period from 1 September 2025 to 31 August 2031.












(2)


In this context, it has been proposed that the terms of office of Ms Maja BRKAN, Mr Jörgen HETTNE, Ms Danutė JOČIENĖ, Mr Damjan KUKOVEC, Mr Johannes LAITENBERGER and Ms Gabriele STEINFATT as Judges of the General Court be renewed.












(3)


In addition, Ms Raffaella PEZZUTO has been nominated for a first term of office as a Judge of the General Court.












(4)


The panel set up under Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given a favourable opinion on the suitability of these candidates to perform the duties of Judge of the General Court,





HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following are hereby appointed Judges to the General Court for the period from 1 September 2025 to 31 August 2031:






—


Ms Maja BRKAN,










—


Mr Jörgen HETTNE,










—


Ms Danutė JOČIENĖ,










—


Mr Damjan KUKOVEC,










—


Mr Johannes LAITENBERGER,










—


Ms Raffaella PEZZUTO,










—


Ms Gabriele STEINFATT.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 11 June 2025.


The President

A. BARTOL
            





ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2025/1185/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Case T-379/24: Order of the General Court of 11 June 2025 – MSG Frucht v EUIPO (Götterfrucht) (EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark Götterfrucht – Absolute grounds for refusal – No distinctive character – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – No recourse to oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal – Article 96(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2025-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, agricultural product, aromatic plant, fruit, non-alcoholic beverage, processed food product, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vegetable








C_202504794EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4794


8.9.2025






Order of the General Court of 11 June 2025 – MSG Frucht v EUIPO (Götterfrucht)


(Case T-379/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Götterfrucht - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No recourse to oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal - Article 96(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(C/2025/4794)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: MSG Frucht GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

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

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 15 May 2024 (Case R 61/2024-5).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










2.


MSG Frucht GmbH and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall each bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2024/5328, 9.9.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4794/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-593/23: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2025 – Nio v EUIPO – Audi (ES6) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark ES6 – Earlier EU word mark S6 – Relative ground for invalidity – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark – Articles 15 and 57 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64 of Regulation 2017/1001) – Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2025-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electricity storage device, general mechanical engineering, motor vehicle, registered trade mark, rental business, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_202504043EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4043


28.7.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2025 – Nio v EUIPO – Audi (ES6)


(Case T-593/23)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ES6 - Earlier EU word mark S6 - Relative ground for invalidity - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Articles 15 and 57 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(C/2025/4043)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Nio Holding Co. Ltd (Hefei, China) (represented by: T. Hogh Holub, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Audi AG (Ingolstadt, Germany) (represented by: C. Kessler, lawyer)

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 12 July 2023 (Case R 548/2023-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Nio Holding Co. Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2023/673, 13.11.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4043/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)