do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration — (Case COMP/M.5476 — PFIZER/WYETH) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, health care, marketing, medicinal product, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2009132EN.01001501.xml










11.6.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 132/15





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5476 — PFIZER/WYETH)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 132/08






1.


On 29 May 2009 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Pfizer Inc. (‘Pfizer’), a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, U.S.A., proposes to acquire sole control within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation of Wyeth, a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, U.S.A. (‘Wyeth’), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Pfizer is a global research based biomedical and pharmaceutical company active in discovering, developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling innovative medicines for humans and animals,










—


Wyeth is a pharmaceutical and healthcare company active in the discovery, development, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceuticals, vaccines, biotechnology products, nutritionals and non-prescription medicines worldwide. The company's major divisions include Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare and Fort Dodge Animal Heath.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 2 2964301 or 2967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5476 — PFIZER/WYETH, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-564/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Patent lawyers — Obligation to take out professional indemnity insurance — Obligation to appoint an approved agent in the Member State in which the services are to be performed)
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, consultancy, freedom to provide services, judgment of the Court (EU), patents licence








C_2009180EN.01001002.xml










1.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/10





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
(Case C-564/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 EC - Freedom to provide services - Patent lawyers - Obligation to take out professional indemnity insurance - Obligation to appoint an approved agent in the Member State in which the services are to be performed)
2009/C 180/16
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and H. Krämer, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl and G. Kunnert, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Requirements imposed by national legislation on patent lawyers lawfully established in other Member States in relation to the performance of services, on a temporary basis, in the Member State concerned — Obligation to enrol in the national register, to hold for those purposes professional indemnity insurance, to agree to be bound by all the national disciplinary rules other than those related to professional qualifications and to act in cooperation with a local agent

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by obliging patent lawyers lawfully established in another Member State who wish temporarily to perform services in Austria to appoint an approved agent resident in Austria, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 79, 29.03.2008.
Case F-72/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Ketselidis v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Action — Prior administrative complaint — Tacit reply — Excusable error — None — Implicit rejection decision — Complaint out of time — Inadmissibility — Judgment of a Community court — Substantial new fact — None)
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Civil Service Tribunal, European Commission, European civil service, European official, Greece, absenteeism, ordinance, transfer of pension rights








C_2009193EN.01003502.xml










15.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 193/35





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Ketselidis v Commission
(Case F-72/08) (1)

(Staff cases - Officials - Action - Prior administrative complaint - Tacit reply - Excusable error - None - Implicit rejection decision - Complaint out of time - Inadmissibility - Judgment of a Community court - Substantial new fact - None)
2009/C 193/58
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Michalis Ketselidis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the implicit decision rejecting the applicant's request for revision of the calculation of the pension annuities to be taken into account for the transfer of pension rights acquired in Greece to the Community scheme.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;










2.


Mr Ketselidou is ordered to pay the costs in their entirety.






(1)  OJ C 272 of 25.10.2008, p. 51
Joined Cases T-114/07 and T-115/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Last Minute Network v OHIM — Last Minute Tour (LAST MINUTE TOUR) (Community trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Community figurative mark LAST MINUTE TOUR — Earlier unregistered national mark LASTMINUTE.COM — Relative ground for refusal — Reference to the national law governing the earlier mark — Action for passing off — Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), provision of services, tourism, trade information, trade-mark law








C_2009180EN.01004502.xml










1.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/45





Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Last Minute Network v OHIM — Last Minute Tour (LAST MINUTE TOUR)
(Joined Cases T-114/07 and T-115/07) (1)

(Community trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Community figurative mark LAST MINUTE TOUR - Earlier unregistered national mark LASTMINUTE.COM - Relative ground for refusal - Reference to the national law governing the earlier mark - Action for passing off - Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2009/C 180/83
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Last Minute Network Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Last Minute SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Locurto, lawyers)

Re:

Two actions brought against the Decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 February 2007 (Cases R 256/2006-2 and R 291/2006-2), concerning cancellation proceedings between Last Minute Network Ltd and Last Minute Tour SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 February 2007 (Cases R 256/2006-2 and R 291/2006-2);










2.


Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the second head of claim of Last Minute Network Ltd;










3.


Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Last Minute Network;










4.


Orders Last Minute Tour SpA to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.
Prior notification of a concentration — (Case COMP/M.5548 — Barclays/RBS/Hillary) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, financial institution, financial services, health care, merger control, provision of services








C_2009132EN.01001701.xml










11.6.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 132/17





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5548 — Barclays/RBS/Hillary)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 132/10






1.


On 4 June 2009 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Barclays Bank PLC (‘Barclays’, United Kingdom) and the undertaking The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (‘RBS’, United Kingdom) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the undertaking Hillary S.à.r.l. (‘Hillary’, Luxembourg), which is the indirect owner of USP Hospitales S.L.U. (‘USP’, Spain), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Barclays: provision of global financial services,










—


for RBS: provision of banking and other financial services,










—


for Hillary: provision of medical assistance services,










—


for USP: provision of medical assistance services.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 2 2964301 or 2967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5548 — Barclays/RBS/Hillary, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.
Case C-529/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Franz Hauswirth GmbH (Three-dimensional Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 51(1)(b) — Criteria relevant to determining whether an applicant is acting in bad faith when filing an application for a Community trade mark)
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, competition law, confectionery product, interpretation of the law, judgment of the Court (EU), trade-mark law








C_2009180EN.01000801.xml










1.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/8





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Franz Hauswirth GmbH
(Case C-529/07) (1)

(Three-dimensional Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 51(1)(b) - Criteria relevant to determining whether an applicant is ‘acting in bad faith’ when filing an application for a Community trade mark)
2009/C 180/12
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG

Defendant: Franz Hauswirth GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Concept of the applicant for a mark ‘acting in bad faith’ — Trade mark application intended to prevent competitors from continuing to market similar goods which have previously acquired a certain reputation — Chocolate Easter bunnies.

Operative part of the judgment

In order to determine whether the applicant is acting in bad faith within the meaning of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, the national court must take into consideration all the relevant factors specific to the particular case which pertained at the time of filing the application for registration of the sign as a Community trade mark, in particular:






—


the fact that the applicant knows or must know that a third party is using, in at least one Member State, an identical or similar sign for an identical or similar product capable of being confused with the sign for which registration is sought;










—


the applicant’s intention to prevent that third party from continuing to use such a sign; and










—


the degree of legal protection enjoyed by the third party’s sign and by the sign for which registration is sought.






(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.
Case T-78/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Baldesberger v OHIM (Shape of tweezers) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of tweezers — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), Germany, electronics industry, trade-mark law








C_2009180EN.01004802.xml










1.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/48





Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Baldesberger v OHIM (Shape of tweezers)
(Case T-78/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of tweezers - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2009/C 180/89
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Fides B. Baldesberger (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Kicia, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2007 (Case R 1405/2007-4) regarding an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of tweezers as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Fides B. Baldesberger to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 107 of 26.4.2008.
Case T-132/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — ERNI Electronics v OHIM (Maxibridge) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark MaxiBridge — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness of the function of the goods indicated in the trade mark application — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009))
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), toiletries, trade-mark law








C_2009180EN.01004803.xml










1.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/48





Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — ERNI Electronics v OHIM (Maxibridge)
(Case T-132/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark MaxiBridge - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness of the function of the goods indicated in the trade mark application - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009))
2009/C 180/90
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ERNI Electronics GmbH (Adelberg, Germany) (represented by: N. Breitenbach and W. Schaller, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2008 (Case R 1530/2006-4) regarding the registration of the word sign Maxibridge as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders ERNI Electronics GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 142 of 7.6.2008
Case T-33/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Bastos Viegas v OHIM — Fabre Médicament (OPDREX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark OPDREX — Earlier national word mark OPTREX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), advertising, pharmaceutical industry, trade-mark law








C_2009180EN.01004702.xml










1.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/47





Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Bastos Viegas v OHIM — Fabre Médicament (OPDREX)
(Case T-33/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark OPDREX - Earlier national word mark OPTREX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2009/C 180/87
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Bastos Viegas, SA (Penafiel, Portugal) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal and P. López Ronda, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Pierre Fabre médicament (Boulogne Billancourt, France) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, A. Angulo Lafora and M. Ferrándiz Avendaño, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2007 (Case R 1238/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pierre Fabre Médicament SA and Bastos Viegas, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bastos Viegas, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.
Case C-429/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — The Netherlands) — Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst v X BV (Competition policy — Articles 81 EC and 82 EC — Article 15(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Written observations submitted by the Commission — National dispute concerning the deductibility from tax of a fine imposed by a Commission decision)
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition law, fine, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law, judgment of the Court (EU), tax exemption, tax system








C_2009180EN.01000502.xml










1.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/5





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — The Netherlands) — Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst v X BV
(Case C-429/07) (1)

(Competition policy - Articles 81 EC and 82 EC - Article 15(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Written observations submitted by the Commission - National dispute concerning the deductibility from tax of a fine imposed by a Commission decision)
2009/C 180/08
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

Defendant: X BV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) — Submission by the Commission of written observations in the course of national proceedings concerning the deductibility for tax purposes of a fine imposed by the Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The third sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that it permits the Commission of the European Communities to submit on its own initiative written observations to a national court of a Member State in proceedings relating to the deductibility from taxable profits of the amount of a fine or a part thereof imposed by the Commission for infringement of Articles 81 EC or 82 EC.


(1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.