do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-262/09: Action brought on 6 July 2009 — Defense Technology v OHIM — DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR)
Date: 2009-07-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), aerosol, innovation, personal weapon, self-defence, trade-mark law








C_2009205EN.01004502.xml










29.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/45





Action brought on 6 July 2009 — Defense Technology v OHIM — DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR)
(Case T-262/09)
2009/C 205/83
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicants: Defense Technology Corporation of America (Jacksonville, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer and Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DEF-TEC Defense Technology GmbH (Frankfurt/Main, Germany)

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 4 May 2009 in case R 493/2002-4 (II); and










—


Order the defendant 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 figurative mark ‘FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR’, for goods in classes 5, 8 and 13 — application No 643 668

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

Mark or sign cited: United States trade mark registration for the word mark ‘FIRST DEFENSE’ for goods in class 13; Two United States trade mark registrations of figurative marks for goods in class 13; An earlier well-known mark in Belgium, Germany and France ‘FIRST DEFENSE’; An earlier well-known mark in Belgium, Germany and France ‘FIRST DEFENSE AND DESIGN’; An earlier non-registered work mark ‘FIRST DEFENSE’ protected in Germany and France; An earlier non-registered mark in Belgium, Germany and France ‘FIRST DEFENSE AND DESIGN’; A trade name ‘FIRST DEFENSE’, protected in Germany

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(3) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal did not properly apply the said provision and, moreover, wrongly rendered a decision based on a flawed understanding of the facts presented; Infringement of Articles 65, 75 and 76 of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 September 2006 in case T-6/05 DEF-TEC Defense Technology v OHIM — Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR)
Case C-268/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Plovdivski rayonen (Bulgaria) sad lodged on 16 July 2009 — Vasil Ivanov Georgiev v Tehnicheski universitet — Sofia, Filial Plovdiv
Date: 2009-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, anti-discriminatory measure, employment policy, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, teacher, work contract, working time








C_2009220EN.01002801.xml










12.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/28





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Plovdivski rayonen (Bulgaria) sad lodged on 16 July 2009 — Vasil Ivanov Georgiev v Tehnicheski universitet — Sofia, Filial Plovdiv
(Case C-268/09)
2009/C 220/53
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Plovdivski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vasil Ivanov Georgiev

Defendant: Tehnicheski universitet — Sofia, Filial Plovdiv

Questions referred







1.


Do the provisions of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation preclude the application of a national Law which does not permit the conclusion of employment contracts of indefinite duration with professors who have reached the age of 65? In this context and, more precisely, taking Article 6(1) of the directive into consideration, are the measures in Article 7(1)(6) of the Law on Protection against Discrimination, which introduce age-limits for employment in specific posts, objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim and proportionate, bearing in mind that the directive has been fully transposed into Bulgarian law?










2.


Do the provisions of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation preclude the application of a national Law under which professors who have reached the age of 68 are compulsorily retired? In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the present case and if it is found that a conflict exists between the provisions of the directive and the relevant national legislation which transposed the directive, is it possible that the interpretation of the provisions of Community law results in the national legislation not being applied?










3.


Does national law establish the reaching of the specified age as the sole condition for the termination of the employment relationship of indefinite duration and for the possibility that the relationship can be continued as a fixed-term employment relationship between the same worker and employer for the same post? Does national law establish a maximum duration and a maximum number of extensions of the fixed-term employment relationship with the same employer after the contract of indefinite duration has been converted into a fixed-term contract, beyond which a continuation of the employment relationship between the parties is not possible?
Case C-246/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2009 — Susanne Bulicke v Deutsche Büro Service GmbH
Date: 2009-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, damages, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, limitation of legal proceedings, recruitment








C_2009244EN.01000201.xml










10.10.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/2





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2009 — Susanne Bulicke v Deutsche Büro Service GmbH
(Case C-246/09)
2009/C 244/02
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Susanne Bulicke

Defendant: Deutsche Büro Service GmbH

Question referred

Does national legislation under which a time-limit of two months from receipt of a rejection of a job application — or by way of interpretation: from knowledge of the discrimination — applies (in the absence of provisions in a collective agreement) to the bringing in writing of a claim for damages and/or compensation based on discrimination in recruitment infringe primary law of the European Community (safeguarding effective legal protection) and/or the Community law prohibition of age discrimination, Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, (1) if three-year limitation periods apply to equivalent claims under national law, and/or the ‘prohibition of regression’ (reduction of protection) under Article 8 of Directive 2000/78/EC, if a previous national provision provided for a longer limitation period for discrimination on grounds of sex?


(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation; OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.
Case T-258/09: Action brought on 6 July 2009 — i-content Ltd Zweigniederlassung Deutschland v OHIM (BETWIN)
Date: 2009-07-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), equal treatment, fine, trade-mark law








C_2009205EN.01004501.xml










29.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/45





Action brought on 6 July 2009 — i-content Ltd Zweigniederlassung Deutschland v OHIM (BETWIN)
(Case T-258/09)
2009/C 205/82
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: i-content Ltd Zweigniederlassung Deutschland (Berlin, Germany) (represented by A. Nordermann, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 May 2009 in appeal case R 1528/2008-4 concerning Community trade mark application No 006849641 — word mark: BETWIN — and the earlier decision of the Office of 10 September 2008 concerning Community trade mark application No 006849641 — word mark: BETWIN;










—


Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘BETWIN’ for services in Classes 35, 38 and 41 (application No 6849641)

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (CE) No 207/2009 (1)) as the mark applied for has the requisite distinctive character and there is no need to maintain it in the public domain; Infringement of Article 79 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, the principle of equal treatment in connection with Articles 6 and 14 ECHR; infringement of Article 49 EC


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Commission Regulation (EC) No 584/2009 of 6 July 2009 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2009-07-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, common agricultural policy, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit








L_2009176EN.01000101.xml










7.7.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 176/1








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 584/2009
of 6 July 2009
         
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables


THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,


Having regard to 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),


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 7 July 2009.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 July 2009.


For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.




ANNEX
Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables







(EUR/100 kg)




CN code


Third country code (1)



Standard import value




0702 00 00 


MA 


24,2 




TR 


44,0 




ZZ 


34,1 




0707 00 05 


TR 


108,5 




ZZ 


108,5 




0709 90 70 


TR 


100,7 




ZZ 


100,7 




0805 50 10 


AR 


53,6 




MK 


25,1 




TR 


41,9 




ZA 


60,5 




ZZ 


45,3 




0808 10 80 


AR 


94,3 




BR 


72,3 




CL 


80,5 




CN 


93,4 




NZ 


113,9 




US 


92,3 




UY 


116,5 




ZA 


88,1 




ZZ 


93,9 




0808 20 50 


AR 


70,3 




CL 


70,8 




NZ 


161,4 




ZA 


100,3 




ZZ 


100,7 




0809 10 00 


TR 


208,8 




XS 


116,3 




ZZ 


162,6 




0809 20 95 


SY 


197,7 




TR 


323,5 




ZZ 


260,6 




0809 30 


TR 


140,1 




ZZ 


140,1 




0809 40 05 


IL 


160,5 




ZZ 


160,5 






(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
            ZZ
            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.
Case C-250/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Plovdivski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 June 2009 — Vasil Ivanov Georiev v Tehnicheski universitet — Sofia, Filial Plovdiv
Date: 2009-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, EU law - national law, approximation of laws, employment policy, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, teacher, work contract, working time








C_2009220EN.01002301.xml










12.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/23





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Plovdivski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 June 2009 — Vasil Ivanov Georiev v Tehnicheski universitet — Sofia, Filial Plovdiv
(Case C-250/09)
2009/C 220/45
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Plovdivski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vasil Ivanov Georiev

Defendant: Tehnicheski universitet — Sofia, Filial Plovdiv

Questions referred







1.


Do the provisions of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation preclude the application of a national Law which does not permit the conclusion of employment contracts of indefinite duration with professors who have reached the age of 65? In this context and, more precisely, taking Article 6(1) of the directive into consideration, are the measures in Article 7(1)(6) of the Law on Protection against Discrimination, which introduce age-limits for employment in specific posts, objectively and reasonably, justified by a legitimate aim and proportionate, bearing in mind that the directive has been fully transposed into Bulgarian law?










2.


Do the provisions of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation preclude the application of a national Law under which professors who have reached the age of 68 are compulsorily retired? In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the present case and if it is found that a conflict exists between the provisions of the directive and the relevant national legislation which transposed the directive, is it possible that the interpretation of the provisions of Community law results in the national legislation not being applied?
Case C-245/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 6 July 2009 — Omalet NV v Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid
Date: 2009-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, debt, entrepreneur, interpretation of the law, liability of the State, social security








C_2009220EN.01002103.xml










12.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/21





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 6 July 2009 — Omalet NV v Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid
(Case C-245/09)
2009/C 220/42
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Omalet NV

Respondent: Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid

Questions referred







1.


Must a national court apply Article 49 EC to a dispute between the Rijksdienst voor Soziale Zekerheid and a principal contractor established in Belgium, where judgment is sought against that principal contractor pursuant to Article 30a(3) of the Law of 27 June 1969 amending the Decree-Law of 28 December 1944 on social security for employed persons (in the version applicable prior to the amendment of that article by Article 55 of the Programme Law of 27 April 2007) as being jointly and severally liable for a portion of the debts of a subcontractor who is unregistered and established in Belgium, or where judgment is sought against that principal contractor because he has not complied with the withholding obligation laid down by Article 30[a](4) of the Law?










2.


(In the alternative):
Is Article 49 EC incompatible with a rule such as that laid down by Article 30a(3) and (4) of the Belgian Law of 27 June 1969 amending the Decree-Law of 28 December 1944 on social security for employed persons (in the version applicable prior to the amendment [of] that article by Article 55 of the Programme Law of 27 April 2007)?
Case T-260/09 P: Appeal brought on 6 July 2009 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 5 May 2009 in Case F-27/08, Simões Dos Santos v OHIM
Date: 2009-07-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, European official, action by staff, appeal, personnel administration, promotion, staff assessment, trade-mark law








C_2009220EN.01003501.xml










12.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/35





Appeal brought on 6 July 2009 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 5 May 2009 in Case F-27/08, Simões Dos Santos v OHIM
(Case T-260/09 P)
2009/C 220/74
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by I. de Medrano Caballero, Agent, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Manuel Simões Dos Santos (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance should:






—


set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-27/08, including the ruling as to costs;










—


uphold the form of order contended for by OHIM at first instance, that is to say, dismiss the action as unfounded;










—


order the respondent to pay the costs of the present proceedings, together with those incurred in the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, OHIM is seeking to have set aside the judgment of 5 May 2009 in Case F-27/08 Simões Dos Santos v OHIM, by which the Civil Service Tribunal annulled Decision PERS-01-07 and OHIM’s letter of 7 June 2007 in so far as they entail the elimination of the balance of the merit points held by Manuel Simões Dos Santos following his promotion.
In support of its appeal, OHIM relies on three pleas in law:






—


error of law in that, contrary to the case-law concerning the conditions relating to the retroactive application of an act and in breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the Civil Service Tribunal held that OHIM was in breach of the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity;










—


error of law, in that the Civil Service Tribunal held that OHIM had infringed Article 233 EC and disregarded the authority of res iudicata of the judgment in Case T-435/04 Simões Dos Santos v OHIM, whereas in fact the measures taken by OHIM for the purposes of complying with that judgment are the only measures permissible if the principle of non-discrimination is not to be infringed;










—


unlawfulness of the award by the Civil Service Tribunal of costs for the reparation of purported non-physical damage, since OHIM is in no way at fault and the ruling of the Civil Service Tribunal in that respect is ultra petita.