do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-477/08: Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Mundipharma v OHIM — ALK-Abelló (AVANZALENE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark AVANZALENE — Earlier Community word mark AVANZ — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2010113EN.01004202.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/42





Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Mundipharma v OHIM — ALK-Abelló (AVANZALENE)
(Case T-477/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark AVANZALENE - Earlier Community word mark AVANZ - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2010/C 113/67
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mundipharma AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard Monguiral, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: ALK-Abelló A/S (Hørsholm, Denmark) (represented by: S. Palomäki Arnesen, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 1694/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between ALK-Abelló A/S and Mundipharma AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders Mundipharma AG to pay the costs, except those incurred by ALK-Abelló A/S.










3.


Orders ALK-Abelló to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.
Case T-401/06: Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam — Market economy treatment — Individual treatment — Sampling — Support of the complaint by the Community industry — Definition of the product concerned — Equal treatment — Injury — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
Date: 2010-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Council of the European Union, Viet Nam, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, footwear industry, import (EU), leather, originating product








C_2010113EN.01003701.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/37





Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council
(Case T-401/06) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Market economy treatment - Individual treatment - Sampling - Support of the complaint by the Community industry - Definition of the product concerned - Equal treatment - Injury - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
2010/C 113/57
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd (Kowloon, China); Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd (Zhongshan, China); Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd (Guangzhou, China); and Risen Footwear (HK) Co., Ltd (Kowloon, China) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and A. Willems, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, acting as Agents) and Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by P. Vlaemminck, G. Zonnekeyn and S. Verhulst and subsequently by P. Vlaemminck and A. Hubert, lawyers)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd and Risen Footwear (HK) Co., Ltd to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission and the Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
Case C-241/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 6(2) and (3) — Incorrect transposition — Special areas of conservation — Significant effect of a project on the environment — Non-disturbing nature of certain activities — Assessment of the effects on the environment)
Date: 2010-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, biotope, judgment of the Court (EU), protection of animal life, protection of plant life








C_2010113EN.01000702.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/7





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-241/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 6(2) and (3) - Incorrect transposition - Special areas of conservation - Significant effect of a project on the environment - ‘Non-disturbing’ nature of certain activities - Assessment of the effects on the environment)
2010/C 113/10
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by D. Recchia and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues and A.-L. During, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Incorrect transposition of Articles 6(2) and 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that,






—


first, by providing generally that fishing, aquaculture, hunting and other hunting-related activities practised under the conditions and in the areas authorised by the laws and regulations in force do not constitute activities causing disturbance or having such an effect, and










—


second, by systematically exempting works and developments provided for in Natura 2000 contracts from the procedure of assessment of their implications for the site, and










—


by systematically exempting works and development programmes and projects which are subject to a declaratory system from that procedure,




the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) and Article 6(3) respectively of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the French Republic to pay two thirds of the costs and the European Commission to pay the other third.






(1)  OJ C 197, 02.08.2008.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5794 — Ramsay Health Care/Predica/Groupe Proclif) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-03-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, economic concentration, exchange of information, financial services, insurance, medical institution, merger control, private medical treatment, provision of services








C_2010054EN.01002401.xml










4.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/24





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5794 — Ramsay Health Care/Predica/Groupe Proclif)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 54/05






1.


On 25 February 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Ramsay Health Care (‘Ramsay’, Australia) and Predica (France), belonging to the Groupe Crédit Agricole (‘GCA’, France), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of Goupe Proclif SAS (‘Groupe Proclif’, France) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Ramsay: operation of private hospitals and day surgery facilities in Australia, Indonesia and the United Kingdom,










—


Predica: insurance and financial services,










—


Groupe Proclif: operation of private hospital services in France.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5794 — Ramsay Health Care/Predica/Groupe Proclif, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Case T-24/08: Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Weldebräu v OHIM — Kofola Holding (Shape of a bottle with a helically formed neck) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a bottle with a helically formed neck — Earlier three-dimensional Community trade mark consisting in the shape of a bottle with a helically formed neck — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Czechia, EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Germany, action for annulment (EU), beer, beverage industry, trade-mark law








C_2010113EN.01004101.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/41





Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Weldebräu v OHIM — Kofola Holding (Shape of a bottle with a helically formed neck)
(Case T-24/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a bottle with a helically formed neck - Earlier three-dimensional Community trade mark consisting in the shape of a bottle with a helically formed neck - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2010/C 113/64
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Weldebräu GmbH & Co. KG (Plankstadt, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Kofola Holding a.s. (Ostrava, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Hejdová and R. Charvát, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 November 2007 (Case R 1096/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Weldebräu GmbH & Co. KG and Kofola Holding a.s.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Weldebräu GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.
Case C-119/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 4 March 2010 — Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH
Date: 2010-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, brand name, interpretation of the law, trade-mark law








C_2010134EN.01002301.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/23





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 4 March 2010 — Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH
(Case C-119/10)
2010/C 134/35
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV

Defendant: Red Bull GmbH

Questions referred







1.








(a)


Is the mere ‘filling’ of packaging which bears a sign (as referred to in paragraph 3.1 (iv) above) to be regarded as using that sign in the course of trade within the meaning of Article 5 of the Trade Mark Directive, (1) even if that filling takes place as a service provided to and on the instructions of another person, for the purposes of distinguishing that person’s goods?










(b)


Does it make any difference to the answer to question 1.a if there is an infringement for the purposes of Article 5(1)(a) or (b)?














2.


If the answer to question 1.a is in the affirmative, can using the sign then also be prohibited in the Benelux on the basis of Article 5 of the Trade Mark Directive if the goods bearing the sign are destined exclusively for export to countries outside (a) the Benelux area or (b) the European Union, and they cannot — except in the undertaking where the filling took place — be seen therein by the public?










3.


If the answer to question II (a or b) is in the affirmative, what criterion must be used when answering the question whether there has been trade-mark infringement: should the criterion be the perception of an average consumer who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect in the Benelux or alternatively in the European Union — who then in the given circumstances can only be determined in a fictional or abstract way — or must a different criterion be used in this case, for example, the perception of the consumer in the country to which the goods are exported?






(1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5754 — Alstom Holdings/Areva T&D Transmission activities) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-03-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy distribution, energy production, exchange of information, merger control, provision of services, rail transport








C_2010054EN.01002301.xml










4.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/23





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5754 — Alstom Holdings/Areva T&D Transmission activities)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 54/04






1.


On 23 February 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Alstom Holdings (‘Alstom’, France), controlled by Alstom SA (‘Alstom’, France), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation sole control of the transmission (high voltage) activities of Areva T&D Holding SA (‘Areva T&D’, France), controlled by Areva SA (‘Areva’, France) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Alstom: manufacture and supply of equipment and services for power generation and rail transport,










—


for Areva T&D (HV activities): provision of products, systems and services that assist in the transmission and distribution of high voltage electrical power.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5754 — Alstom Holdings/Areva T&D Transmission activities, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).
Opinion of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2010 on a Council recommendation on the appointment of the Vice-President of the European Central Bank (CON/2010/19)
Date: 2010-03-04
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: European Central Bank, appointment of members, opinion, vice-president of an institution








C_2010058EN.01000301.xml










10.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/3





OPINION OF THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
of 4 March 2010
on a Council recommendation on the appointment of the Vice-President of the European Central Bank
(CON/2010/19)
2010/C 58/03

Introduction and legal basis

On 24 February 2010 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the President of the European Council for an opinion on a Council Recommendation on the appointment of the Vice-President of the European Central Bank.
The competence of the ECB’s Governing Council to deliver an opinion is based on Article 283(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

General observations







1.


The Council’s recommendation, which was submitted to the European Council and on which the European Parliament and the ECB’s Governing Council are being consulted, recommends that Vítor CONSTÂNCIO be appointed as the Vice-President of the ECB for a term of office of eight years with effect from 1 June 2010.










2.


The ECB’s Governing Council is of the opinion that the proposed candidate is a person of recognised standing and professional experience in monetary or banking matters as required by Article 283(2) of the Treaty.










3.


The ECB’s Governing Council has no objection to the Council’s recommendation to appoint Vítor CONSTÂNCIO as the Vice-President of the ECB.





Done at Frankfurt am Main, 4 March 2010.


The President of the ECB

Jean-Claude TRICHET
Case C-221/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 95/59/EC — Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco — Article 9(1) — Free determination, by manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of their products — National legislation imposing a minimum retail selling price for cigarettes — Justification — Protection of public health — World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control)
Date: 2010-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, fixing of prices, judgment of the Court (EU), reference price, tobacco industry








C_2010113EN.01000701.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/7





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v Ireland
(Case C-221/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 95/59/EC - Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco - Article 9(1) - Free determination, by manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of their products - National legislation imposing a minimum retail selling price for cigarettes - Justification - Protection of public health - World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control)
2010/C 113/09
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, G. Hogan SC)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40) — National law imposing minimum and maximum retail prices for manufactured tobacco

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by imposing minimum retail prices for cigarettes, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as amended by Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002;










2.


Declares that, by not providing the information required by the European Commission in order to enable it to fulfil its task of monitoring compliance with Directive 95/59, as amended by Directive 2002/10, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 EC;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders Ireland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.
Case T-414/09: Order of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Henkel v OHIM — JLO Holding (LIVE) (Community trade marks — Application for revocation — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2010-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), brand name, cosmetic product, trade-mark law








C_2010113EN.01004602.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/46





Order of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Henkel v OHIM — JLO Holding (LIVE)
(Case T-414/09) (1)

(Community trade marks - Application for revocation - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate)
2010/C 113/75
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: C. Milbradt, subsequently by C. Milbradt and H. Van Volxem, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: JLO Holding Company LLC (Santa Monica, United States) (represented by: A. Klett, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 July 2009 (Case R 609/2008-1) relating to an application for revocation involving Henkel AG & Co. KGaA and JLO Holding Company, LLC.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The parties shall each bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.