do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
2010/92/CFSP: Council Decision 2010/92/CFSP of 15 February 2010 extending restrictive measures against Zimbabwe
Date: 2010-02-15
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Zimbabwe, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, military equipment, natural person, technical cooperation








L_2010041EN.01000601.xml










16.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 41/6








            COUNCIL DECISION 2010/92/CFSP
of 15 February 2010
         
extending restrictive measures against Zimbabwe


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 19 February 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/161/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (1).












(2)


Council Common Position 2009/68/CFSP (2), adopted on 26 January 2009, extended Common Position 2004/161/CFSP until 20 February 2010.












(3)


In view of the situation in Zimbabwe, in particular the lack of progress in the implementation of the Global Political Agreement signed in September 2008, the restrictive measures provided for in Common Position 2004/161/CFSP should be extended for a further period of 12 months.












(4)


However, there are no longer grounds for keeping certain persons and entities on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which Common Position 2004/161/CFSP applies. The list set out in the Annex to Common Position 2004/161/CFSP should be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The restrictive measures provided for in Common Position 2004/161/CFSP are hereby extended until 20 February 2011.


Article 2
The persons and entities mentioned in the Annex to this Decision shall be removed from the list set out in the Annex to Common Position 2004/161/CFSP.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.


Article 4
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 15 February 2010.


For the Council


The President

Á. GABILONDO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 50, 20.2.2004, p. 66.

(2)  
            OJ L 23, 27.1.2009, p. 43.




ANNEX

Persons and entities referred to in Article 2

I.   PERSONS








no3


Al Shanfari, Thamer Bin












no39


Dabengwa, Dumiso












no54


Hove, Richard












no57


Jangara (a.k.a. Changara), Thomsen












no113


Msika, Joseph W.












no203


Zvinavashe, Vitalis




II.   ENTITIES








no16


Industrial Development Corporation of Zimbabwe












no17


Intermarket Holdings Ltd












no22


Oryx Diamonds Ltd (a.k.a. Oryx Natural Resources)












no27


Scotfin Ltd












no33


ZB Financial Holdings Ltd (a.k.a. Finhold)












no34


ZB Holdings Ltd












no37


Zimbabwe Iron and Steel Company (a.k.a. Zisco, Ziscosteel)












no39


Zimre Holdings Ltd












no40


Zimre Reinsurance Company (PVT) Ltd
Case T-72/10: Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Intermark Srl v OHIM
Date: 2010-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, appeal, fruit juice, trade-mark law








C_2010113EN.01005201.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/52





Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Intermark Srl v OHIM
(Case T-72/10)
2010/C 113/83
Language in which the application was lodged: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant(s): Intermark Srl (Stei, Romania) (represented by: Á.M. László, ügyvéd)

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

Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Natex International Trade SpA (Pioltello, Italy)

Form of order sought







—


Amendment of the decision of the defendant and dismissal in its entirety of the application for registration with regard to all goods;










—


An order that the defendant bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Natex International Trade SpA

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘NATY’S’ for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32 (application for registration No 5 810 627)

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark ‘Naty’ for goods and services in classes 30 and 35 (Community trade mark No 4 149 456)

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the application

Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) in that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case T-68/10: Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Sphere Time v OHIM — Punch (watches)
Date: 2010-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clock and watch industry, trade-mark law








C_2010100EN.01006002.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/60





Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Sphere Time v OHIM — Punch (watches)
(Case T-68/10)
2010/C 100/89
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Sphere Time société anonyme (Windhof, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. Jäger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Punch, société par actions simplifiée (Nice, France)

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) of 2 December 2009 in case R 1130/2008-3 and order the defendant to confirm the validity of the challenged Community registered design; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and to enact that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal bears the costs of the applicant related to the invalidity and appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A design registered for ‘watches’

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Decision of the Invalidity Division: Declared the contested Community design invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 4, 5 and 6 of Council Regulation No 6/2002, as the Board of Appeal wrongly considered the challenged design as lacking individual character and as not being new; infringement of Article 61(2) of Council Regulation No 6/2002 as the Board of Appeal has not correctly evaluated the applicant’s arguments and evidences submitted in the course of the proceedings, misinterpreted the freedom of the designer and based its decision on a false appreciation, thereby misusing its power.
Case C-87/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Vicenza — Sezione distaccata di Schio (Italy) lodged on 15 February 2010 — Electrosteel Europe SA v Edil Centro SpA
Date: 2010-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, Italy, civil law, commercial law, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction








C_2010100EN.01003001.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/30





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Vicenza — Sezione distaccata di Schio (Italy) lodged on 15 February 2010 — Electrosteel Europe SA v Edil Centro SpA
(Case C-87/10)
2010/C 100/45
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Vicenza

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Electrosteel Europe SA

Defendant: Edil Centro SpA

Question referred

Must Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 44/01 (1) — and, in any event, Community law — which lays down that, in the case of the sale of goods, the place of performance of an obligation is the place where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered, be interpreted as meaning that the place of delivery, relevant for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction, is the place of final destination of the goods covered by the contract or the place in which the seller is discharged of his obligation to deliver, in accordance with the substantive rules applicable to the individual case, or is that rule open to a different interpretation?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1).
Case T-88/10: Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Inter IKEA Systems v OHIM — Meteor Controls (GLÄNSA)
Date: 2010-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2010113EN.01005901.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/59





Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Inter IKEA Systems v OHIM — Meteor Controls (GLÄNSA)
(Case T-88/10)
2010/C 113/91
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Inter IKEA Systems B.V. (Delft, The Netherlands) (represented by: J. Gulliksson, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meteor Controls International Limited (Cookstown, Ireland)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2009 in case R 529/2009-2; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred both in these proceedings and in the proceedings before it.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “GLÄNSA”, for goods in class 11

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 “GLANZ”, for goods in classes 6, 9 and 11

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the trade mark applied for in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to make a correct global assessment and comparison of the trade marks concerned, thereby wrongly finding that these were similar and, as a result, that there was a likelihood of confusion between them.