do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-53/10: Action brought on 5 February 2010 — Riesenthel v OHIM — Dynamic Promotion (Hampers, crates and baskets)
Date: 2010-02-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2010100EN.01005602.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/56





Action brought on 5 February 2010 — Riesenthel v OHIM — Dynamic Promotion (Hampers, crates and baskets)
(Case T-53/10)
2010/C 100/83
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Peter Riesenthel (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: E. Aliki Busse, 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: Dynamic Promotion Co. Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 November 2009 and 10 December 2009 (Case R 621/2009-3);










—


in the alternative, order restitutio in integrum in relation to the applicant;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community design No 2 179 550 001 for ‘Hampers, crates and baskets’

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Dynamic Promotion Co. Ltd

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Peter Riesenthel

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal as inadmissible

Pleas in law: Infringement of the right to be heard and incorrect exercise of discretion by the Board of Appeal
Case T-49/10: Action brought on 5 February 2010 — The Footwear Co. Ltd v OHIM — Reno Schuhcentrum (swiss cross FOOTWEAR)
Date: 2010-02-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), footwear industry, trade-mark law








C_2010100EN.01005601.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/56





Action brought on 5 February 2010 — The Footwear Co. Ltd v OHIM — Reno Schuhcentrum (swiss cross FOOTWEAR)
(Case T-49/10)
2010/C 100/82
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: The Footwear Co. Ltd (Chai Wan, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: G. Griss and C. Loidl, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Reno Schuhcentrum GmbH (Thaleischweiler-Fröschen, 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 December 2009 in Case R 1705/2008-4;










—


Reject definitively and in its entirety the opposition to registration of the mark applied for in respect of goods in Classes 25 and 28;










—


Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to grant registration of the mark applied for;










—


Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs, including those incurred in the opposition proceedings and before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The Footwear Co. Ltd

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘swiss cross FOOTWEAR’ for goods in Classes 25 and 28 (Registration No 4 686 549)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Reno Schuhcentrum GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘criss cross’ No 30 229 875 for goods in Classes 14, 18, 25 and 28

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the Community trade mark application

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 T-514/09 R: Order of the Judge hearing the application for interim measures of 5 February 2010 — De Post v Commission (Interim measures — Public procurement — Community tendering procedure — Application for suspension of operation and for interim measures — No urgency)
Date: 2010-02-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Official Journal, European Commission, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, distributive trades, indemnification, invitation to tender, telecommunications industry








C_2010080EN.01002503.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/25





Order of the Judge hearing the application for interim measures of 5 February 2010 — De Post v Commission
(Case T-514/09 R)
(Interim measures - Public procurement - Community tendering procedure - Application for suspension of operation and for interim measures - No urgency)
2010/C 80/45
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: De Post NV van publiek recht (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Martens and B. Schutyser, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and N. Bambara, Agents, and assisted by P. Wytinck, lawyer)

Re:

Application for interim measures seeking, in essence, first, an order suspending the operation of the decision by which the Publications Office of the European Union awarded the contract referred to in Invitation to Tender No 10234 ‘Daily transport and delivery of the Official Journal, books, other periodicals and publications’ to Entreprise des postes et télécommunications Luxembourg, second, an order prohibiting the signature of the contract referred to in the Invitation to Tender and, third, if the contract has already been signed, that its performance be suspended until the Court has ruled on the substance of the action.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


Costs are reserved.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010029EN.01000501.xml










5.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 29/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

4 February 2010
2010/C 29/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3847




JPY


Japanese yen


125,68




DKK


Danish krone


7,4446




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87310




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1330




CHF


Swiss franc


1,4690




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,1690




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


26,120




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


272,60




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7091




PLN


Polish zloty


4,0280




RON


Romanian leu


4,1250




TRY


Turkish lira


2,0735




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5726




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4701




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,7583




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,9879




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,9597




KRW


South Korean won


1 593,98




ZAR


South African rand


10,4779




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,4532




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3210




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 942,49




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7371




PHP


Philippine peso


63,945




RUB


Russian rouble


41,6850




THB


Thai baht


45,806




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5765




MXN


Mexican peso


17,9700




INR


Indian rupee


64,0490






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-69/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 5 February 2010 — Brahim Samba Diouf v Ministre du Travail, de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration
Date: 2010-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Luxembourg, admission of aliens, interpretation of the law, refugee, right of asylum, rights of aliens








C_2010100EN.01002701.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/27





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 5 February 2010 — Brahim Samba Diouf v Ministre du Travail, de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration
(Case C-69/10)
2010/C 100/40
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Brahim Samba Diouf

Defendant: Ministre du Travail, de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 39 of Directive 2005/85/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding national rules such as those established in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by Article 20(5) of the Amended Law of 5 May 2006 on the right of asylum and complementary forms of protection, pursuant to which an applicant for asylum does not have a right to appeal to a court against the administrative authority’s decision to rule on the merits of the application for international protection under the accelerated procedure?










2.


If the answer is in the negative, is the general principle of an effective remedy under Community law, prompted by Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, to be interpreted as precluding national rules such as those established in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by Article 20(5) of the Amended Law of 5 May 2006 on the right of asylum and complementary forms of protection, pursuant to which an applicant for asylum does not have a right to appeal to a court against the administrative authority’s decision to rule on the merits of the application for international protection under the accelerated procedure?






(1)  Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13).
Planned closure of complaint No 2009/2002
Date: 2010-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Romania, application of EU law, complaint to the Commission, environmental tax, equal treatment, motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, tax exemption, tax system, used goods








C_2010029EN.01000801.xml










5.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 29/8





Planned closure of complaint No 2009/2002
2010/C 29/06
The European Commission has received a large number of complaints concerning a car pollution tax levied in Romania in accordance with the relevant national legislation, as amended by the Government Emergency Ordinance 218/2008. These complaints were treated under the lead file with reference number 2009/2002.
By publishing this notice the Commission informs the public on its intentions to close this file.
First, it must be recalled that regrettably there is no harmonisation of the passenger car related taxes at the EU level and therefore Member States are not precluded from levying such taxes and are free to decide on their levels and methods of calculation. However, such discretion is restricted by the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Article 110 (ex Article 90 ECT), which requires equal tax treatment of domestic products and products coming from other Member States.
The responsible Commission's department, after having analysed the Government Emergency Ordinance 218/2008, concluded that it was not in line with Article 110 TFEU given that certain used cars appeared to be overtaxed in comparison with similar motor vehicles registered on the domestic market as new. The exemption granted under the terms of Government Emergency Ordinance 218/2008 did not appear to be based on objective criteria and seemed to favour domestic car manufacturers. This was considered to be incompatible with Article 110 of the TFEU and, consequently, on 26 June 2009, the Commission issued a letter of formal notice urging the Republic of Romania to amend the contested provisions (IP/09/1012).
The Romanian authorities replied with a letter of 28 September 2009 expressing their position on the matter and on 12 of January 2010 informed the Commission of the Government Emergency Ordinance 117/2009, which abolished the exemption granted under Emergency Ordinance 218/2008 with the effect from 1 January 2010.
In the light of the above information, the responsible department of the Commission considers that the Romanian authorities have taken the appropriate steps to ensure compliance with the EU law and at present it would appear that the Romanian legislation on car pollution tax has been brought in to line with Article 110 TFEU.
For this reason, the responsible department will propose to the Commission that the case in question be closed.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2010-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Finland, State aid, air transport, control of State aid








C_2010029EN.01000101.xml










5.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 29/1





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 29/01






Date of adoption of the decision


13.1.2010




Reference number of State Aid


N 397/09




Member State


Finland




Region


Pohjanmaa/Ostrobothnia




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Kiinteistö Oy Cargo Apron Vaasa (Tuki Vaasan lentoaseman lentorahtitoimintoihin liittyvään infrastruktuuriin)




Legal basis


Laki valtionavustuksesta yritystoiminnan kehittämiseksi 1336/2006 (Lag om statsunderstöd för utvecklande av företagsverksamhet 1336/2006); Asetus valtionavustuksesta yritystoiminnan kehittämiseksi 675/2007 (Förordning om statsunderstöd för utvecklande av företagsverksamhet 675/2007)




Type of measure


Individual aid




Objective


Sectoral development




Form of aid


Direct grant, Guarantee




Budget


Annual budget: EUR 2,947 million
Overall budget: EUR 2,947 million




Intensity


—




Duration (period)


1.2010-4.2010




Economic sectors


Air transport




Name and address of the granting authority







Pohjanmaan TE-keskus, työllisyyden ja yrittäjyyden vastuualue




PL 131




FI-65101 Vaasa




SUOMI/FINLAND








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/state_aids_texts_en.htm
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5644 — Kraft Foods/Cadbury) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: confectionery, disclosure of information, economic concentration, foodstuff, merger control, milk product, restrictive-practice authorisation








C_2010029EN.01000401.xml










5.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 29/4





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5644 — Kraft Foods/Cadbury)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 29/03
On 6 January 2010, 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 Regulation (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:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5644. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-80/09 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2010 — Volker Mergel, Klaus Kampfenkel, Burkart Bill, Andreas Herden v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(c) — Refusal to register — Word mark Patentconsult — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2010-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Germany, appeal, consultancy, industrial property, patent, trade-mark law








C_2010148EN.01001002.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/10





Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2010 — Volker Mergel, Klaus Kampfenkel, Burkart Bill, Andreas Herden v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-80/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(c) - Refusal to register - Word mark Patentconsult - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
2010/C 148/16
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellants: Volker Mergel, Klaus Kampfenkel, Burkart Bill, Andreas Herden (represented by: G.P. Friderichs, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2008 in Case T-335/07 Mergel and Others v OHIM, by which the Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2007, dismissing the action against the decision of the examiner to refuse the registration of the Community word mark ‘Patentconsult’ for the goods and services within Classes 35, 41 and 42 — Distinctive character of a mark which consists exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the characteristics of the goods or services concerned

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mergel, Kampfenkel, Bill and Herden to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.