ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/6

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 June 2012 — TofuTown.com GmbH; other parties to the proceedings: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-599/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Community trade mark - Application for registration of the word sign ‘TOFUKING’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the trade mark Curry King - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Degree of similarity)

2012/C 303/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: TofuTown.com GmbH (represented by: B. Krause, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: S. Russlies, Rechtsanwalt), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2011 in Case T-99/10 Meica v OHIM — TofuTown.com (TOFUKING), in which the General Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2010 (Case R 63/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG and TofuTown.com GmbH — Likelihood of confusion

Operative part of the order

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders TofuTown.com GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG;

3. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/23

Order of the Court of 15 October 2012 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v European Commission

(Case C-554/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents - Refusal of full access to documents relating to contract LIEN 97-2011 - Action for annulment - Fresh examination in the course of proceedings - Bringing a separate annulment action)

2013/C 9/37

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and T. Scharf, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 September 2011 in Case T-141/05 RENV Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission, by which the Court ordered that there is no longer any need to give a ruling on the applicant’s form of order seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 14 February 2005, rejecting its request for access to the file relating to contract LIEN 97-2011 — Procedural irregularities before the Court — Failure to deal with Cases T-141/05 RENV and T-36/10 in a coordinated manner — Burden and amount of costs

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/24

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 September 2012 — Omnicare Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Astellas Pharma GmbH

(Case C-587/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for registration of the word sign ‘OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH’ - Opposition - Decision of the Board of Appeal rejecting the application - Action - Judgment of the General Court dismissing that action - Withdrawal of the opposition - Appeal - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 9/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Omnicare Inc. (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Astellas Pharma GmbH (represented by: M.L. Polo Carreño, abogada)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-289/09 Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH), in which the General Court dismissed an action, brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH’ for services in Class 42, for the annulment of Decision R 401/2008-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 14 May 2009 annulling the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by the proprietor of the national mark ‘OMNICARE’ for services in Classes 35, 41 and 42 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Concept of genuine use of an earlier mark — Mark used for services provided free of charge

Operative part of the order

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by Omnicare Inc.

2. Omnicare Inc. shall pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in the course of the present proceedings and the proceedings for interim measures.

3. Omnicare Inc. and Astellas Pharma GmbH shall each bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/2

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Jožef Grilc v Slovensko zavarovalno združenje GIZ

(Case C-541/11) (1)

(Article 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2000/26/EC - Compensation bodies - Claim for compensation brought before a national court)

2013/C 79/02

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jožef Grilc

Defendant: Slovensko zavarovalno združenje GIZ

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Vrhovno sodišče — Interpretation of Article 6(1), first subparagraph, of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65) — Meaning of ‘claim for compensation’ and ‘responsible for providing compensation’ — Capacity of the compensation body to be a defendant in legal proceedings

Operative part of the order

Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that, on the one hand, the injured party may claim compensation for the harm suffered from the compensation body in accordance with the conditions set out in that article and, on the other, that claim must necessarily first have been submitted to the compensation body, without prejudice to the injured party’s right, if necessary, subsequently to bring an action before the court having territorial jurisdiction if that claim has been rejected by that compensation body.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/15

Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Geldern — Germany) — Nadine Büsch, Björn Siever v Ryanair Ltd

(Case C-255/11) (1)

2013/C 63/26

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 377/2

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission

(Case C-617/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Assignment - Automatic transfer - Decision to reassign an official from a third country to the Commission headquarters in Brussels (Belgium) - Decision annulled by the General Court after referral back by the Court of Justice - Compensation for the harm purportedly suffered as a result of the annulment of a decision to reassign)

2013/C 377/02

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 September 2011 in Case T-236/02 Marcuccio v Commission, by which that court dismissed, in part, first, an application for annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 18 March 2002 to reassign the appellant from the Commission Delegation in Luanda (Angola) to the Directorate General for Development in Brussels (Belgium), of all preliminary, connected or consecutive measures, in particular those relating to the recruitment of another official to occupy his post, of the Commission’s notes of 13 and 14 November 2001 and of the opinion or opinions of the External Service Steering Committee, and, second, a claim for allowances in connection with his duties in Angola and damages for harm suffered — Rights of the defence — Failure to state reasons — Distortion of the facts

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/19

Order of the President of the Court of 5 November 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-325/12) (1)

2013/C 108/49

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/8

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Abd Aziz Tam

(Case C-74/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - No description of the dispute in the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)

2012/C 303/16

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Revere

Criminal proceedings against

Abd Aziz Tam

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Revere — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) and of Article 4(3) TEU — National legislation imposing a fine on a third-country national who has entered or stayed in the country illegally — Admissibility of the criminal offence of illegal stay — Possibility of substituting the fine with an order for expulsion with immediate effect for a period of at least five years or with a home detention (‘permanenza domiciliare’) sentence — Obligations of the Member States during the period prescribed for the transposition of a directive

Operative part of the order

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy), by decision of 26 January 2012, is clearly inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/10

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) — Isera & Scaldis Sugar SA, Philippe Bedoret and Co SPRL, Jean Rigot, Mathieu Vrancken v Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

(Case C-154/12) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Agriculture - Common organisation of markets - Sugar - Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 - Article 16 - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Article 51 - Imposition of a charge on production - Validity - Lack of legal basis - Failure to state clear and unequivocal reasons - Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination - Infringement of the principle of proportionality)

2013/C 108/19

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Isera & Scaldis Sugar SA, Philippe Bedoret and Co SPRL, Jean Rigot, Mathieu Vrancken

Defendant: Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

Other parties to proceedings: Joseph Cockx and Others.

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Validity of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 1) — Interpretation of Articles 37(2) EC and 253 EC — Imposition of a charge on production in the ‘beet sugar’ sector — Lack of legal basis — Failure to state clear and unequivocal reasons — Discrimination as compared with other industries and as compared with other agricultural and non-agricultural sectors — Infringement of the principle of proportionality

Operative part of the order

Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector and Article 51 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation).

(1) OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/15

Order of the President of the Court of 5 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hongrie) — Franklin Templeton Investment Funds Société d’Investissement à Capital Variable v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Ügyek és Adózók Adó Főigazgatósága

(Case C-112/12) (1)

2013/C 63/28

Language of the case: Hungarian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/19

Order of the President of the Court of 6 February 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere — Italy) — Procura della Repubblica v Xiamie Zhu, Guo Huo Xia, Xie Fmr Ye, Jian Hui Luo, Ua Zh Th

(Joined Cases C-51/12 to C-54/12) (1)

2013/C 108/45

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/13

Order of the President of the Court of 8 March 2013 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-532/12) (1)

2013/C 129/24

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/59

Order of the President of the Court of 25 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Paris — France) — Société Reggiani SpA Illuminazione v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-618/12) (1)

2013/C 225/130

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/58

Order of the President of the Court of 22 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Wikom Deutsche Telekabel GmbH previously Wikom Elektrik GmbH v VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte mbH

(Case C-416/12) (1)

2013/C 225/122

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/59

Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-572/12) (1)

2013/C 225/128

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/44

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Volkswagen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Suzuki Motor Corp.

(Case C-260/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark Swift GTi - Opposition by the proprietor of national and international word marks GTI - Withdrawal of the opposition - Appeal which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 225/75

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Volkswagen AG (represented by: S. Risthaus, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Suzuki Motor Corp.

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2012 in Case T-63/09 Volkswagen v OHIM — Suzuki Motor (SWIFT GTi) by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2008 (Case R 749/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Volkswagen AG and Suzuki Motor Corp. — Word sign SWIFT GTi — Likelihood of confusion with the word mark GTI — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.

2. Volkswagen AG shall pay the costs of these proceedings.

(1) OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/53

Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-544/12) (1)

2013/C 344/93

Language of the case: Polish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/45

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 May 2013 — You Q BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Apple Corps Ltd

(Case C-294/12 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BEATLE’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community and national word and figurative marks containing the word elements ‘BEATLES’ and ‘THE BEATLES’ - Refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

2013/C 225/77

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: You Q BV (represented by: G.S.C.M. van Roeyen, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis and I. Harrington, acting as Agents), Apple Corps Ltd (represented by A. Terry, Solicitor, and F. Clark, Barrister)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 in Case T-369/10 You-Q v OHIM — Apple Corps (Beatle), by which that Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the figurative mark including the word element ‘BEATLE’ for goods in Class 12 against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 31 May 2010 in Case R 1276/2009-2, which annulled the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by the proprietor of the Community and national word and figurative marks including the word elements ‘BEATLES’ and ‘THE BEATLES’ in respect of goods in Classes 6, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34 and 41

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. You-Q BV shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/7

Order of the Court of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Astrazeneca AB v Comptroller General of Patents

(Case C-617/12) (1)

((Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 13(1) - Concept of ‘first authorisation to place [a product] on the market in the Community’ - Authorisation issued by the Swiss Institute for Medicinal Products (Swissmedic) - Automatic recognition in Liechtenstein - Authorisation issued by the European Medicines Agency - Period of validity of a certificate))

2014/C 102/08

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Astrazeneca AB

Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court — United Kingdom — Interpretation of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Meaning of first authorisation to place the product on the market — Swiss authorisation automatically recognised by Liechtenstein but not granted in accordance with the administrative procedure laid down by Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use.

Operative part of the order

In the context of the European Economic Area (EEA), Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that an administrative authorisation issued for a medicinal product by the Swiss Institute for Medicinal Products (SwissMedic), which is automatically recognised in Liechtenstein, must be regarded as the first authorisation to place that medicinal product on the market within the meaning of that provision in the European Economic Area where that authorisation predates marketing authorisations issued for the same medicinal product, either by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), or by the competent authorities of European Union Member States in accordance with the requirements laid down in Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, and the authorities of the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway. The fact that, on the basis of similar clinical data, the European Medicines Agency, unlike the Swiss authority, refused to grant a marketing authorisation for that medicinal product at the conclusion of its examination of those data, or the fact that the Swiss authorisation to place the product on the market was suspended by the Swiss Institute for Medicinal Products and subsequently reinstated by the latter only when the holder of the authorisation submitted additional data to it are irrelevant.

(1) OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.