do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-22/10: Action brought on 25 January 2010 — Esprit International v OHIM — Marc O’Polo International (Representation of the letter e on a trouser pocket)
Date: 2010-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), brand name, clothing industry, trade-mark law








C_2010100EN.01004202.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/42





Action brought on 25 January 2010 — Esprit International v OHIM — Marc O’Polo International (Representation of the letter ‘e’ on a trouser pocket)
(Case T-22/10)
2010/C 100/66
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Esprit International LP (New York, United States of America) (represented by: M. Treis, 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: Marc O’Polo International GmbH (Stephanskirchen, Germany)

Form of order sought







—


Annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2009 in Case R 1666/2008-4;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Esprit International

Community trade mark concerned: a figurative mark representing the letter ‘e’ on a trouser pocket for goods in Classes 18 and 25 (Application No 5 089 859)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Marc O’Polo International GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: in particular, a German figurative mark No 30 303 672 representing the letter ‘e’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case C-40/10: Action brought on 25 January 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
Date: 2010-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), pay, pension scheme, regulations for civil servants, servant (EU)








C_2010051EN.01002701.xml










27.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/27





Action brought on 25 January 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
(Case C-40/10)
2010/C 51/43
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant(s): European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, G. Berscheid and J.-P. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

Defendant(s): Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


annul Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2009 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (1) apart from Articles 1 and 3 thereof, while maintaining its effects until the adoption by the Council of a new regulation correctly applying Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations and Annex XI thereto;










—


order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission seeks the annulment in part of Regulation (EU) No 1296/2009 in so far as the Council, for reasons of political expediency, has replaced in that regulation the amounts of the remuneration and pensions proposed by the Commission on the basis of a rate of adjustment of 3,7 % — which is the result of the mechanical application of Article 65 of the Staff Regulations and Annex XI thereto — by amounts corresponding to a coefficient of 1,85 %, which is incorrect. In the view of the Council, that replacement is justified by the economic and financial crisis and by the economic and social policy of the Union.
As regards Articles 2 and 4 to 17 of the contested regulation, the Commission puts forward a single plea, alleging breach of Article 65 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1 and 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations. The Council has circumscribed powers in this area, more so under the current version of the Staff Regulations — in which the details of the method of adjusting remuneration and pensions are set out in Annex XI thereto — than in the past, when the Court, on the basis of Article 65 of the Staff Regulations alone, concluded that the Council’s discretion was limited. The Commission also relies on a breach of legitimate expectations and of the principle of ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’.
Article 18 of the contested regulation, for its part, breaches Articles 3 to 7 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations in creating the possibility of making an intermediate adjustment of remuneration, beyond the deadline laid down in Article 65 of the Staff Regulations and outside the framework of the conditions laid down in Articles 4 to 7 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations.


(1)  OJ 2009 L 348, p. 10.
Case C-42/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium), lodged on 25 January 2010 — 1. Vlaamse Dierenartsenvereniging VZW, 2. Marc Janssens v Belgische Staat; intervener: Luk Vangheluwe
Date: 2010-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, animal disease, domestic animal, health control, interpretation of the law, transport of animals








C_2010100EN.01002002.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/20





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium), lodged on 25 January 2010 — 1. Vlaamse Dierenartsenvereniging VZW, 2. Marc Janssens v Belgische Staat; intervener: Luk Vangheluwe
(Case C-42/10)
2010/C 100/31
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings








Applicants


:


Vlaamse Dierenartsenvereniging VZW
Marc Janssens




Defendant


:


Belgische Staat




Intervener


:


Luk Vangheluwe





Questions referred







1.


Do Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and the second paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC, and the articles of and annexes to Commission Decision 2003/803/EC (2) of 26 November 2003 establishing a model passport for the intra-Community movements of dogs, cats and ferrets preclude national legislation regulating passports for cats and ferrets from, on the one hand, referring to the model and the additional requirements laid down in the aforementioned Commission Decision of 26 November 2003, yet, on the other hand, also prescribing that every passport must bear a unique number consisting of 13 characters, namely, ‘BE’, being the ISO code for Belgium, followed by the identification number of the distributor consisting of two digits, and a serial number consisting of nine digits?










2.


Do Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and the second paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 … and the articles of and annexes to … Decision 2003/803/EC … preclude national legislation from also using the model of the European pet passport as proof of both the identification and the registration of dogs and, in that connection, making provision for third parties to insert changes with regard to the identification of the owner and the animal in Parts I to III of a European pet passport attested by an authorised veterinarian by means of identification stickers which are superimposed on the previous identification details?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 146, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2003 L 312, p. 1.
Case T-15/10: Action brought on 25 January 2010 — Noko Ngele v Commission
Date: 2010-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, Centre for the Development of Enterprise, European Commission, appeal








C_2010161EN.01004301.xml










19.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/43






Action brought on 25 January 2010 — Noko Ngele v Commission
(Case T-15/10)
(2010/C 161/68)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mariyus Noko Ngele (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Sabakunzi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


declare that the CDE never replaced the CDI and that it does not exist in law or have legal personality in Belgium;










—


order the European Commission, and one of its Members and certain officers thereof, jointly and severally, to pay the amount of EUR 200 000 in respect of financial damage, in addition to statutory interest of 10 % per annum as from 1995 plus interest to be determined by the Court;










—


order the European Commission, and one of its Members and certain officers thereof, jointly and severally, to pay the amount of EUR 5 000 000 in respect of non-material and psychological damage, in addition to interest to be determined by the Court;










—


declare that the judgment to be delivered will be enforceable notwithstanding any possible appeal;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs and a procedural indemnity of EUR 30 000.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant claims damages for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of the impossibility of pursuing recovery of a debt owed to him by the ‘Centre pour le développement industriel (CDI)’ in consequence of the replacement of that organisation by a joint institution of the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) Group of States and the European Union named ‘Centre pour le développement de l’entreprise (CDE)’.
Case T-26/10: Action brought on 25 January 2010 — Alibaba Group v OHIM — allpay.net (ALIPAY)
Date: 2010-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, service industry, trade-mark law








C_2010100EN.01004501.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/45





Action brought on 25 January 2010 — Alibaba Group v OHIM — allpay.net (ALIPAY)
(Case T-26/10)
2010/C 100/69
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Alibaba Group Holding Limited (Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: allpay.net.Limited (Hereford, United Kingdom)

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 5 November 2009 in case R 1790/2008-1, as far as the appeal was dismissed; and










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ALIPAY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 42

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘ALLPAY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 40 and 42; United Kingdom trade mark registration of the word mark ‘ALLPAY.NET’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 36, 38 and 42; United Kingdom trade mark registration of a series of word marks containing the word ‘ALLPAY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 40 and 42; unregistered earlier marks or signs containing the word ‘ALLPAY’, used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods and services

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal partially

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 likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.
Case F-8/10: Action brought on 25 January 2010 — Gheysens v Council
Date: 2010-01-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), servant (EU), work contract








C_2010100EN.01006903.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/69





Action brought on 25 January 2010 — Gheysens v Council
(Case F-8/10)
2010/C 100/102
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Johan Gheysens (Mechelen, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the Council’s decision not to extend the applicant’s contract and, as a result, to terminate his employment relationship with the Council.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


Annul the decision not to extend the applicant’s contract beyond 30 September 2009 and the refusal to take any measure to regularise the administrative situation of the applicant, who has carried out permanent tasks at the institution for 16 years;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.