do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-582/24: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2025 – Claims Balkans v EUIPO (CLAIMS) (EU trade mark – Application for EU figurative mark CLAIMS – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2025-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audit, business data processing, consultancy, dissemination of information, legal adviser, registered trade mark, trade information, trade-mark law, traineeship








C_202505846EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5846


10.11.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2025 – Claims Balkans v EUIPO (CLAIMS)


(Case T-582/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark CLAIMS - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(C/2025/5846)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Claims Balkans d.o.o. Beograd (Belgrade, Serbia) (represented by: I. Luzhnova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee, 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 13 September 2024 (Case R 1833/2023-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Claims Balkans d.o.o. Beograd and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) each to bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2025/575, 3.2.2025.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5846/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-222/24: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2025 – KF v EIB (Civil service – EIB staff – Complaint of psychological harassment – Decision adopted in compliance with a judgment of the General Court – New administrative inquiry – Error of fact – Error of assessment – Liability)
Date: 2025-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: disciplinary proceedings, harassment at work, indemnification, psychological harassment, servant (EU)








C_202505834EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5834


10.11.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2025 – KF v EIB


(Case T-222/24)
                (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Complaint of psychological harassment - Decision adopted in compliance with a judgment of the General Court - New administrative inquiry - Error of fact - Error of assessment - Liability)
(C/2025/5834)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: KF (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: J. Pawlowicz, T. Gilliams and K. Carr, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant seeks, first, the annulment of the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 17 January 2024 in so far as it partially dismisses her complaint of psychological harassment and, secondly, compensation in respect of the non-material damage she claims to have suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 17 January 2024 in so far as it partially dismisses the complaint of psychological harassment made by KF;










2.


Orders the EIB to pay KF the sum of EUR 10 000 in compensation for the non-material damage she suffered;










3.


Orders the EIB to bear the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2024/3628, 17.6.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5834/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-657/25: Action brought on 24 September 2025 – Mowi Poland v EFSA
Date: 2025-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Member State, access to EU information, disclosure of information, establishment, legal person








C_202505863EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5863


10.11.2025






Action brought on 24 September 2025 – Mowi Poland v EFSA


(Case T-657/25)

(C/2025/5863)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Mowi Poland S.A. (Ustka, Poland) (represented by: Z. Kiedacz and K. Puchalska, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul EFSA’s implied decision of 14 July 2025 issued in the case being examined by EFSA under the reference number 00020121 and refusing MOWI Poland S.A.’s request for access to public documents, submitted pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001, and










—


order EFSA to pay the costs.





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 infringement by EFSA of Article 15(3) TFEU, read in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation No 1049/2001










—


Article 15(3) TFEU, read in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation No 1049/2001, provides for the general right of any legal person having its registered office in a Member State of access to documents of EU bodies, subject to the general principles and limits governing the exercise of that right as determined by means of Regulation No 1049/2001. The issuing by EFSA of an implied refusal decision for the purposes of Article 8(3) of that regulation is manifestly in breach of that right.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement by EFSA of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights










—


As is apparent from the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, legal acts adopted by the EU institutions are subject to the obligation to state reasons. The statement of reasons must be appropriate to the nature of the act in question and must show, clearly and unequivocally, the reasoning of the institution which adopted that act. For its part, Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights establishes that the right to good administration includes the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions. In a case where EFSA has issued an implied refusal decision for the purposes of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, the decision is not accompanied by any statement of reasons, which is manifestly in breach of the obligation to state reasons laid down in both of those provisions.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5863/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-557/24: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2025 – Confrasilvas – Construções v EUIPO – Zizioli (Confrasilvas) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark Confrasilvas – Earlier sign Confrasilvas – Relative ground for refusal – Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance – Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2025-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building industry, clock and watch industry, electricity storage device, hiring, maintenance, mining industry, miscellaneous industries, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202505845EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5845


10.11.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2025 – Confrasilvas – Construções v EUIPO – Zizioli (Confrasilvas)


(Case T-557/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Confrasilvas - Earlier sign Confrasilvas - Relative ground for refusal - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2025/5845)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Confrasilvas – Construções, S. A. (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J. Oliveira, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Riccardo Zizioli (Brescia, Italy)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 August 2024 (Case R 35/2024-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Confrasilvas – Construções S. A. and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2024/7376, 16.12.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5845/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-340/23: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2025 – Barry’s Bootcamp v EUIPO – Hummel (Device of two inverted chevrons) (EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark representing two inverted chevrons – Action for annulment – Time limits for instituting proceedings – Admissibility – Genuine use of the mark – Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Nature of use of the mark – Form differing in elements that do not alter the distinctive character of the mark – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2025-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, clothing, cosmetic product, leather, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_202505824EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5824


10.11.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2025 – Barry’s Bootcamp v EUIPO – Hummel (Device of two inverted chevrons)


(Case T-340/23)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing two inverted chevrons - Action for annulment - Time limits for instituting proceedings - Admissibility - Genuine use of the mark - Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Nature of use of the mark - Form differing in elements that do not alter the distinctive character of the mark - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(C/2025/5824)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC (Miami, Florida, United States) (represented by: M. Hawkins, T. Dolde and C. Zimmer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hummel Holding A/S (Aarhus, Denmark) (represented by: S. Pedersen, 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 March 2023 (Case R 1422/2022-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);










3.


Orders Hummel Holding A/S to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 286, 14.8.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5824/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-1101/23: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2025 – AQ v ECHA (Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Document relating to notifications for the export of dangerous chemicals which are prohibited or severely restricted within the European Union – Decision of ECHA to grant access to a third party – Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests – Proportionality)
Date: 2025-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, dangerous substance, disclosure of information, export (EU), principle of proportionality








C_202505829EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5829


10.11.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2025 – AQ v ECHA


(Case T-1101/23)
                (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Document relating to notifications for the export of dangerous chemicals which are prohibited or severely restricted within the European Union - Decision of ECHA to grant access to a third party - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Proportionality)
(C/2025/5829)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: AQ (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grassi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: C. Buchanan and B. Broms, acting as Agents, and by G. Gilmore, Barrister-at-Law)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 14 September 2023 issued in procedure for access to documents ATD/040/2023.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders AQ to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures before the General Court.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2024/757, 22.1.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5829/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11944 – MMG / BRAZILIAN NICKEL BUSINESS OF ANGLO AMERICAN)
Date: 2025-09-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Australia, Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Peru, copper, economic concentration, merger control, metallurgical industry, mining of ore, nickel, zinc








C_202505176EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5176


24.9.2025






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.11944 – MMG / BRAZILIAN NICKEL BUSINESS OF ANGLO AMERICAN)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/5176)


1.   
On 16 September 2025, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


MMG Limited (‘MMG’, Australia), controlled by China Minmetals Corporation (China),










—


Anglo American’s Brazilian nickel business (‘Anglo Nickel Brazil’, Brazil), controlled by Anglo American plc (United Kingdom).




MMG will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Anglo Nickel Brazil.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.
The same concentration was already notified to the Commission on 23 April 2025, but the notification was subsequently withdrawn on 22 May 2025.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:






—


MMG operates and develops copper, zinc and other base metal projects across Australia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Botswana and Peru,










—


Anglo Nickel Brazil mines, processes, and sells nickel.






3.   

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.



4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.11944 – MMG / BRAZILIAN NICKEL BUSINESS OF ANGLO AMERICAN
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5176/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.12049 – SIXTH STREET / F2i / NEW SORGENIA JV)
Date: 2025-09-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy production, gas supply, investment company, merger control, retail trade, wholesale trade








C_202506105EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6105


26.11.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.12049 – SIXTH STREET / F2i / NEW SORGENIA JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/6105)

On 24 September 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 32025M12049. 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/2025/6105/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-238/24: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2025 – Karić v Council (Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine – Freezing of funds – Restrictions on admission to the territory of the Member States – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources or to restrictions on admission to the territory of the Member States – Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list – Obligation to state reasons – Error of assessment)
Date: 2025-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, freezing of assets, international sanctions, natural person, travel ban (EU)








C_202505835EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5835


10.11.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2025 – Karić v Council


(Case T-238/24)
                (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Restrictions on admission to the territory of the Member States - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources or to restrictions on admission to the territory of the Member States - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment)
(C/2025/5835)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bogoljub Karić (Belgrade, Serbia) (represented by: W. Julié, A. Beauchemin, T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: L. Berger and T. Haas, acting as Agents, and by B. Maingain, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, in so far as those acts concern him, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/769 of 26 February 2024 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ L, 2024/769) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/768 of 26 February 2024 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ L, 2024/768).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Bogoljub Karić to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2024/3792, 24.6.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5835/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-658/25: Action brought on 24 September 2025 – Vitromed Healthcare v EUIPO – Vitromed (IVF LABWARE A VITROMED BRAND)
Date: 2025-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, scientific apparatus, trade-mark law








C_202506188EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6188


24.11.2025






Action brought on 24 September 2025 – Vitromed Healthcare v EUIPO – Vitromed (IVF LABWARE A VITROMED BRAND)


(Case T-658/25)

(C/2025/6188)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Vitromed Healthcare (Jaipur, India) (represented by: S. Schneller, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vitromed GmbH (Jena, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark IVF LABWARE A VITROMED BRAND – European Union trade mark No 18 525 881
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 July 2025 in Case R 2178/2024-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


in the alternative, alter the decision so as to uphold the Cancellation Division’s declaration of invalidity of EU trade mark No. 18 525 881 for all goods in Class 10;










—


in the further alternative, remit the case to the EUIPO for further prosecution with binding guidance to exercise its discretion under Article 95(2) of the EUTMR (1) and Article 27(4) EUTMDR (2) to admit and assess the supplementary invoices listed in Annexes C1-C13 of the application;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the EUTMR;










—


Infringement of the Canon principle of interdependence (referring to case C-39/97);










—


Inconsistent treatment of earlier case-law;










—


Infringement of Articles 47 and 64 of the EUTMR;










—


In the alternative, acceptance of late evidence by EUIPO.






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1, hereinafter the ‘EUTMR’).

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 (OJ 2018, L 104, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6188/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)