do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-526/09: Action brought on 28 December 2009 — PAKI Logistics GmbH v OHIM
Date: 2009-12-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), carriage of goods, logistics, packaging, trade-mark law








C_2010080EN.01003102.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/31





Action brought on 28 December 2009 — PAKI Logistics GmbH v OHIM
(Case T-526/09)
2010/C 80/53
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: PAKI Logistics GmbH (Ennepetal, Germany) (represented by M. Bergermann, P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt and J. Vogtmeier, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 October 2009 (R 180/2007-1);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in connection with the appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘PAKI’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 20, 37 and 39 (Application No 4 790 895)

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Error of law in the application of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of the same Regulation, since the mark applied for is not contrary to accepted principles of morality


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case C-547/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) lodged on 28 December 2009 — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Andrea Schwab
Date: 2009-12-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, interpretation of the law, sexual discrimination, unfair dismissal








C_2010100EN.01001401.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/14





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) lodged on 28 December 2009 — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Andrea Schwab
(Case C-547/09)
2010/C 100/22
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

Respondent: Andrea Schwab

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 2(2), first indent, and Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 76/207/EEC, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC, (1) and Article 2(1)(a) and (b) and Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC (2) be interpreted as meaning that direct sex discrimination (termination/dismissal of an employed doctor) by a public pension insurance fund may be justified?










2.


Should Article 4(1) of Directive 97/80/EEC (3) and Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC — and possibly Article 2(2), second indent, of Directive 76/207/EEC, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC, and Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2006/54/EC or Article 2(2)(a) in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC (4) — be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in the event of actions for the annulment of terminations/dismissals inter alia on the grounds of sex, does not permit the consideration of social factors or interests, but only the assessment of evidence as to whether the sex discrimination was the predominant motive for the termination/dismissal or whether another reason to be substantiated by the employer predominated?






(1)  Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions; OJ 1976 L, p. 40.

(2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast); OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.

(3)  Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex; OJ 1998 L 14, p. 6.

(4)  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-525/09: Action brought on 28 December 2009 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA)
Date: 2009-12-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2010080EN.01003101.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/31





Action brought on 28 December 2009 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA)
(Case T-525/09)
2010/C 80/52
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Metronia, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2009 in case R 1315/2006-1, as far as the appeal has been dismissed on the grounds that it does not comply with Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009); and










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs, including those incurred in the opposition and appeal proceedings.





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 ‘METRONIA’, for goods and services in classes 9, 20, 28 and 41

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

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘METRO’, for goods and services in classes 9, 20, 28 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application;

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal, rejected the opposition and, as a result, allowed the Community trade mark application to proceed in respect of all goods and services

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.