december 16, 2024 0 0 CELEX:62023TA0462: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2024 – ePlus v EUIPO – Telefónica Germany (E-Plus: (Case T-462/23) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark E-Plus – Absolute ground for invalidity – No bad faith – Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
december 16, 2024 0 0 CELEX:62023TA0463: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2024 – ePlus v EUIPO – Telefónica Germany (E-Plus: (Case T-463/23) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark E-Plus – Absolute ground for invalidity – No bad faith – Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
februar 03, 2025 0 0 CELEX:62023TA0464: Case T-464/23: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Lidl Digital International v EUIPO – Ningbo Hanyuan Lighting (Lamp) (Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a lamp – Grounds for invalidity – Individual character – Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Duty to state reasons – Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002)
december 16, 2024 0 0 CELEX:62023TA0465: Case T-465/23: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2024 – Rivellini v Parliament (Law governing the institutions – Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the Parliament – Parliamentary assistance allowance – Recovery by way of set-off of sums overpaid – Burden of proof – Limitation)
oktober 21, 2024 0 0 CELEX:62023TA0470: Case T-470/23: Judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2024 – Erzeugergemeinschaft Winzersekt v EUIPO – Milz (Hinterland) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark Hinterland – Absolute ground for invalidity – Distinctive character – No descriptive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
februar 03, 2025 0 0 CELEX:62023TA0471: Case T-471/23: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Lidl Digital International v EUIPO – Ningbo Hanyuan Lighting (Lamp) (Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a lamp – Disclosure of the earlier design – Proof of disclosure – Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
julij 22, 2024 0 0 CELEX:62023TA0472: Case T-472/23: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2024 – Marcinkowska-Dec v EUIPO – Ismailova (DESSI) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark DESSI – Earlier EU word mark DESHI – Relative ground for invalidity – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
avgust 26, 2024 0 0 CELEX:62023TA0473: Case T-473/23: Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2024 – Bartex Bartol v EUIPO – Grupa Chorten (duch puszczy) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark duch puszczy – Absolute ground for invalidity – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 16(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)
julij 07, 2025 0 0 CELEX:62023TA0476: Case T-476/23: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2025 – Norddeutsche Landesbank – Girozentrale v SRB (Economic and Monetary Union – Banking Union – Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) – Single Resolution Fund (SRF) – Decision of the SRB on the calculation of the ex ante contributions for the 2023 contribution period – Risk indicators – Data not available)
december 16, 2024 0 0 CELEX:62023TA0480: Case T-480/23: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2024 – Plahotniuc v Council (Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of actions destabilising Moldova – Freezing of funds – Restrictions on entry into the territories of the Member States – Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and to restrictions on entry into the territories of the Member States – Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists – Criminal investigations and prosecutions initiated by the authorities of a third State – Obligation to verify that that decision observes the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection – Obligation to state reasons)