Legal documents catalogue (cjeu_case)

104,315 documents
35701

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 March 2020.#European Union Intellectual Property Office v Equivalenza Manufactory, SL.#Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Assessment of the similarity of the signs at issue — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Consideration of marketing circumstances — Counteraction of a phonetic similarity through visual and conceptual differences — Conditions for counteraction.#Case C-328/18 P.

cjeu_case ·
35702

Arrêt de la Cour (première chambre) du 4 mars 2020.#Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB) contre Bank BGŻ BNP Paribas S.A.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice – Coopération judiciaire en matière pénale – Décision-cadre 2005/214/JAI – Reconnaissance et exécution des sanctions pécuniaires infligées aux personnes morales – Transposition incomplète d’une décision-cadre – Obligation d’interprétation conforme du droit national – Portée.#Affaire C-183/18.

cjeu_case ·
35703

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 March 2020.#Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB) v Bank BGŻ BNP Paribas S.A.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk–Południe w Gdańsku.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA – Recognition and enforcement of financial penalties imposed on legal persons – Incomplete transposition of a framework decision – Obligation to interpret national law in accordance with EU law – Scope.#Case C-183/18.

cjeu_case ·
35704

Arrêt de la Cour (quatrième chambre) du 4 mars 2020.#Tulliallan Burlington Ltd contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO).#Pourvoi – Marque de l’Union européenne – Règlement (CE) no 207/2009 – Marques verbales et figuratives “BURLINGTON” – Opposition du titulaire de marques verbales et figuratives antérieures “BURLINGTON” et “BURLINGTON ARCADE” – Article 8, paragraphe 1, sous b) – Risque de confusion – Arrangement de Nice – Classe 35 – Notion de “services de vente au détail” – Article 8, paragraphe 4 – Usurpation – Article 8, paragraphe 5 – Renommée – Critères d’appréciation – Similitude entre les produits et les services – Rejet de l’opposition.#Affaires jointes C-155/18 P à C-158/18 P.

cjeu_case ·
35705

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 March 2020.#Tulliallan Burlington Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Word and figurative marks ‘BURLINGTON’ — Opposition of the proprietor of the earlier word and figurative marks ‘BURLINGTON’ and ‘BURLINGTON ARCADE’ — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Nice Agreement — Class 35 — Concept of ‘retail services’ — Article 8(4) — Passing-off — Article 8(5) — Reputation — Criteria for assessment — Similarity between the goods and services — Opposition rejected.#Joined Cases C-155/18 P to C-158/18 P.

cjeu_case ·
35706

Arrêt de la Cour (quatrième chambre) du 4 mars 2020.#Mowi ASA contre Commission européenne.#Pourvoi – Concurrence – Contrôle des opérations de concentration entre entreprises – Règlement (CE) no 139/2004 – Article 4, paragraphe 1 – Obligation de notification préalable des concentrations – Article 7, paragraphe 1 – Obligation de suspension – Article 7, paragraphe 2 – Exemption – Notion de “concentration unique” – Article 14, paragraphe 2 – Décision infligeant des amendes pour la réalisation d’une opération de concentration avant sa notification et son autorisation – Principe ne bis in idem – Principe d’imputation – Concours d’infractions.#Affaire C-10/18 P.

cjeu_case ·
35707

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 March 2020.#Mowi ASA v European Commission.#Appeal — Competition — Control of concentrations between undertakings — Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Article 4(1) — Prior notification obligation for concentrations — Article 7(1) — Standstill obligation — Article 7(2) — Exemption — Concept of a ‘single concentration’ — Article 14(2) — Decision imposing fines for the implementation of a concentration before it has been notified and authorised — Principle ne bis in idem — Set‑off principle — Concurrent offences.#Case C-10/18 P.

cjeu_case ·
35708

Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered on 4 March 2020.#Telenor Magyarország Zrt. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnöke.#Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Electronic communications – Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 – Article 3 – Open internet access – Article 3(1) – Rights of end users – Right to access applications and services and to use them – Right to provide applications and services – Article 3(2) – Prohibition of agreements and commercial practices limiting the exercise of end users’ rights – Concepts of ‘agreements’, ‘commercial practices’, ‘end users’ and ‘consumers’ – Assessment of whether the exercise of end users’ rights is limited – Detailed rules – Article 3(3) – Obligation of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic – Possibility of implementing reasonable traffic-management measures – Prohibition of measures blocking and slowing down traffic – Exceptions – Commercial practices consisting in offering packages which provide (i) that customers subscribing to them purchase a tariff entitling them to use a given data volume without restriction, without any deduction being made from that volume for using certain specific applications and services covered by ‘a zero tariff’ and (ii) that once the data volume has been used up, those customers may continue to use those specific applications and services without restriction, while measures blocking or slowing down traffic are applied to the other applications and services.#Joined Cases C-807/18 and C-39/19.

cjeu_case ·
35709

Case C-655/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Teritorialna direktsiya ‘Severna morska’ kam Agentsiya Mitnitsi, successor in law to Mitnitsa Varna v Schenker EOOD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Removal from customs supervision — Theft of goods placed under a customs warehousing procedure — Article 242 — Person responsible for the removal — Holder of the authorisation for customs warehousing — Penalty for failure to comply with the customs legislation — Article 42 — Obligation to pay a sum corresponding to the value of the missing goods — Combination with a pecuniary penalty — Proportionality)

cjeu_case ·
35710

Case C-587/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 — CSTP Azienda della Mobilità SpA v European Commission, Asstra Associazione Trasporti (Appeal — Competition — State aid — Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Regione Campania (Campania Region, Italy) — Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) — European Commission decision declaring the aid measure unlawful and incompatible with the internal market)

cjeu_case ·
35711

Case C-586/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 — Buonotourist Srl v European Commission, Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) (Appeal — Competition — State aid — Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Regione Campania (Campania Region, Italy) — Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) — European Commission decision declaring the aid measure unlawful and incompatible with the internal market)

cjeu_case ·
35712

Case C-328/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 — European Union Intellectual Property Office v Equivalenza Manufactory, SL (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Assessment of the similarity of the signs at issue — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Consideration of marketing circumstances — Counteraction of a phonetic similarity through visual and conceptual differences — Conditions for counteraction)

cjeu_case ·
35713

Case C-183/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk–Południe w Gdańsku — Poland) — Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB) v Bank BGŻ BNP Paribas S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA — Recognition and enforcement of financial penalties imposed on legal persons — Incomplete transposition of a framework decision — Duty to interpret national law in accordance with EU law — Scope)

cjeu_case ·
35714

Joined Cases C-155/18 P to C-158/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 — Tulliallan Burlington Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Burlington Fashion GmbH (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Word and figurative marks ‘BURLINGTON’ — Opposition of the proprietor of the earlier word and figurative marks ‘BURLINGTON’ and ‘BURLINGTON ARCADE’ — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Nice Agreement — Class 35 — Concept of ‘retail services’ — Article 8(4) — Passing-off — Article 8(5) — Reputation — Criteria for assessment — Similarity between the goods and services — Opposition rejected)

cjeu_case ·
35715

Case C-10/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 — Mowi ASA, formerly Marine Harvest ASA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Control of concentrations between undertakings — Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Article 4(1) — Prior notification obligation for concentrations — Article 7(1) — Standstill obligation — Article 7(2) — Exemption — Concept of a ‘single concentration’ — Article 14(2) — Decision imposing fines for the implementation of a concentration before it has been notified and authorised — Principle ne bis in idem — Set off principle — Concurrent offences)

cjeu_case ·