do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5265 — Ergo International/Bank Austria Creditanstalt Versicherung) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-02-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, holding company, insurance, insurance company, life assurance, merger control, reinsurance

13.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/3

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5265 — Ergo International/Bank Austria Creditanstalt Versicherung)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 36/02)

On 18 September 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to
declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public
after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

— from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). 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 under document number 32008M5265. EUR-Lex is the

on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5358 — Arizona Chemical GMBH/Abieta Chemie GMBH)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 36/03)

On 16 January 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to
declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 139/2004. 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:

— from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). 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 under document number 32009M5358. EUR-Lex is the

on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).
Case T-229/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 February 2009 — Vitro Corporativo v OHIM — Vallon (√) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2009-02-13
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), trade-mark law

C 82/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.4.2009

3. Orders the applicants at first instance and the Commission to bear

their own costs.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 February 2009
— Okalux v OHIM — Ondex (ONDACELL)

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

(Case T-126/08) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Failure
to pay the opposition fee — Decision deeming the opposition
non-existent — Action manifestly devoid of any legal basis)

Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 February 2009
— Vitro Corporativo v OHIM — Vallon (√)

(Case T-229/07) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the
opposition — No need to adjudicate)

Parties

(2009/C 82/43)

Language of the case: German

(2009/C 82/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Vitro Corporativo, SA de C.V. (Nuevo Leon, Mexico)
(represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. López Fernández
de Corres, acting as Agent)

Applicant: Okalux GmbH (Marktheidenfeld, Germany)
sented by: M. Beckensträter, lawyer)

(repre-

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting
as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM
Instance: Ondex SAS
intervening before
(Chevigny-Saint-Sauveur, France)

the Court

of First

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM
intervening before the Court of First Instance: Vallon GmbH (Horb,
Germany)

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal
of OHIM of 7 November 2006 (Case R 1363/2005-1)
concerning opposition proceedings between Vitro Corporativo,
SA de C.V. and Vallon GmbH.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action.

2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of
Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2008 (Case R 1384/2007-4)
regarding opposition proceedings between Okalux GmbH and
Ondex SAS.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Okalux GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.

(1) OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.
Case T-55/09: Action brought on 13 February 2009 — Swarovski v OHIM — Swarovski (Daniel Swarovski Privat)
Date: 2009-02-13
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Austria, EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2009102EN.01001803.xml










1.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/18





Action brought on 13 February 2009 — Swarovski v OHIM — Swarovski (Daniel Swarovski Privat)
(Case T-55/09)
2009/C 102/30
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Daniel Swarovski (Volders, Austria) (represented by: R. Küppers, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Swarovski AG (Triesen, Liechtenstein)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 9 November 2008 in Case R 0348/2008-1;










—


dismiss the appeal;










—


order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Daniel Swarovski

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Daniel Swarovski Privat’ for goods and services in classes 3, 4, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 39 and 44 (application No 3 981 099)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Swarovski AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘DANIEL SWAROVSKI’ for goods and services in classes 16, 18, 21, 25 and 41 (Community trade mark No 3 895 133); word mark ‘Swarovski’ for goods and services in classes 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 34, 35 and 41 (Community trade mark No 3 895 091); word mark ‘Swarovski’ for services in class 36 (Austrian word mark No 218 795); word mark ‘Swarovski’ for goods in classes 11, 16, 21 and 34 (Austrian word mark No 96 389); and word mark ‘Swarovski’ for goods in classes 8, 9, 11, 14, 18, 21, 25 and 26 (international registration in respect of Italy No 528 189)

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue or the requisite detriment to the earlier marks and, moreover, since the scope of protection of the earlier marks has been determined incorrectly.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections
Date: 2009-02-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Ireland, Italy, Sardinia, State aid, control of State aid, exchange of information, farming sector

13.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/1

II

(Information)

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

COMMISSION

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2009/C 36/01)

Date of adoption of the decision

23.12.2008

Reference number of the aid

N 475/08

Member State

Region

Italy

Sardegna

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) Contributi per il miglioramento, l'adeguamento o la realizzazione delle strutture

aziendali di allevamento nel comparto suinicolo

Legal basis

— L.R. 5 marzo 2008, n. 3 (Finanziaria 2008) — articolo 7, comma 1

— DGR n. 31/12 del 27 maggio 2008, concernente «Legge regionale
del 5 marzo 2008, n. 3 — articolo 7 comma 1 — Contributi per il miglior-
amento, l'adeguamento o la realizzazione delle strutture aziendali di alleva-
mento nel comparto suinicolo»

Type of measure

Investment aid

Objective

Investment aid

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Intensity

Overall budget: EUR 2 million

40 % of eligible investments and 50 % of eligible investments in less favoured
areas. For young farmers the maximum intensity is increased by 10 %

Duration

From approval by the Commission until 31 December 2010

Economic sectors

Agricultural sector

C 36/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.2.2009

Name and address of
authority

the granting

Regione Autonoma Sardegna
Assessorato Agricoltura
Via Pessagno 4
Cagliari
Italia

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be
found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision

23.12.2008

Reference number of the aid

N 643/08

Member State

Region

Ireland

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Special measures relating to meat products of animal origin from pigs following
a dioxin contamination in Ireland

Legal basis

— The Central Fund (Permanent Provisions) Act, 1965

— The Annual Appropriation Act

Type of measure

Compensation to remedy the consequences of an exceptional occurrence
(Article 87(2)(b) of the Treaty)

Objective

Form of aid

Budget

Intensity

Duration

Economic sectors

Name and address of
authority

the granting

Compensation to remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy

Direct grant

Around EUR 170 million

Up to 100 %

Until 31.3.2009

Agriculture

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Agriculture House
Kildare Street
Dublin 2
Ireland

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be
found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/
Case T-62/09: Action brought on 13 February 2009 — Rintisch v OHIM — Bariatrix Europe (PROTI SNACK)
Date: 2009-02-13
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Germany, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2009102EN.01002102.xml










1.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/21





Action brought on 13 February 2009 — Rintisch v OHIM — Bariatrix Europe (PROTI SNACK)
(Case T-62/09)
2009/C 102/34
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS (Guilherand Granges, France)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 December 2008 in case R 740/2008-4; and










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “PROTI SNACK”, for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 — application No 4 992 145

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 39 702 429 of the word mark “PROTI” for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration No 39 608 644 of the figurative mark “PROTIPOWER” for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration No 39 549 559 of the word mark “PROTIPLUS” for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration No 39 629 195 of the trade word “PROTITOP” for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to provide an assessment on the merits of the opposition; Infringement of Article 74(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal refused to exercise its discretion or at least failed to state how it exercised such discretion; Misuse of power as the Board of Appeal failed to take into account documents and evidence submitted by the applicant.