do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-282/09 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 — Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) — Refusal to register — Overall assessment with regard to the goods and services referred to in the application for registration — Goods and services constitute homogeneous groups — Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), financial services, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2010148EN.01001101.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/11





Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 — Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-282/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) - Refusal to register - Overall assessment with regard to the goods and services referred to in the application for registration - Goods and services constitute homogeneous groups - Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible)
2010/C 148/17
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) (represented by: P. Greffe and L. Paudrat, avocats)

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

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2009 in Joined Cases T-405/07 and T-406/07 CFCMCEE v OHIM, by which the Court dismissed the actions brought by the appellant against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July and 12 September 2007, dismissing its actions against the examiner’s refusal to register as trade marks of the word signs PAYWEB CARD and P@YWEB CARD for the goods and services within Classes 9, 36 and 38 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957 — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Need for a separate examination of each of the grounds of refusal to register set out in Article 7(1) of that regulation — The requirement of reasons for the refusal to register with regard to each of the goods and services referred to in the application for registration — Goods and services constitute homogeneous groups

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.
Case T-94/08: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2010 — Centre de coordination Carrefour v Commission (Actions for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme for coordination centres established in Belgium — New decision of the Commission adopted following partial annulment by the Court — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, distributive trades, multinational enterprise








C_2010113EN.01004102.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/41





Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2010 — Centre de coordination Carrefour v Commission
(Case T-94/08) (1)

(Actions for annulment - State aid - Aid scheme for coordination centres established in Belgium - New decision of the Commission adopted following partial annulment by the Court - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
2010/C 113/65
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Centre de coordination Carrefour SNC (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: X. Clarebout and K. Platteau, Lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, Agent)

Re:

Action for the annulment of Commission Decision 2008/283/EC of 13 November 2007 amending Decision 2003/757/EC on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination centres established in Belgium (OJ 2008 L 90, p. 7), in so far as it does not provide an adequate transitional period.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders Centre de coordination Carrefour SNC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C C 92, 12.4.2008.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5700 — Lloyds TSB Development Capital/PCH) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: delivery, disclosure of information, economic concentration, hydrocarbon, investment company, merger control, oil refining, private investment, restrictive-practice authorisation








C_2010067EN.01000201.xml










18.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 67/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5700 — Lloyds TSB Development Capital/PCH)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 67/02
On 12 March 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 32010M5700. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-9/07: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2010 — Grupo Promer Mon Graphic v OHIM — PepsiCo (Representation of a circular promotional item) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a circular promotional item — Prior design — Ground for invalidity — Conflict — No different overall impression — Meaning of conflict — Product at issue — Degree of freedom of the designer — Informed user — Article 10 and Article 25(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), designs and models, gaming, sales promotion, trade-mark law








C_2010113EN.01003902.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/39





Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2010 — Grupo Promer Mon Graphic v OHIM — PepsiCo (Representation of a circular promotional item)
(Case T-9/07) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a circular promotional item - Prior design - Ground for invalidity - Conflict - No different overall impression - Meaning of ‘conflict’ - Product at issue - Degree of freedom of the designer - Informed user - Article 10 and Article 25(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
2010/C 113/61
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA (Sabadell, Spain) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: PepsiCo Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 October 2006 (Case R 1001/2005-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA and PepsiCo Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 27 October 2006 (Case R 1001/2005-3);










2.


Orders OHIM and PepsiCo Inc. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA in the proceedings before the General Court;










3.


Orders OHIM and PepsiCo to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Grupo Promer Mon Graphic in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.






(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.
Case T-189/08: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2010 — Forum 187 v Commission (Actions for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme for coordination centres established in Belgium — New decision of the Commission adopted following partial annulment by the Court — Association — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), aid system, control of State aid, infringement of EU law








C_2010113EN.01004201.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/42





Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2010 — Forum 187 v Commission
(Case T-189/08) (1)

(Actions for annulment - State aid - Aid scheme for coordination centres established in Belgium - New decision of the Commission adopted following partial annulment by the Court - Association - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
2010/C 113/66
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Forum 187 (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Sutton and G. Forwood, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

Re:

Action for the annulment of Commission Decision 2008/283/EC of 13 November 2007 amending Decision 2003/757/EC on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination centres established in Belgium (OJ 2008 L 90, p. 7), in so far as it does not provide reasonable prospective transitional periods for the coordination centres concerned by the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission [2006] ECR I-5479

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders Forum 187 ASBL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.
Case T-125/10: Action brought on 18 March 2010 — Amecke Fruchtsaft v OHIM — Uhse (69 Sex up)
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cosmetic product, foodstuff, pharmaceutical product, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2010148EN.01003401.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/34





Action brought on 18 March 2010 — Amecke Fruchtsaft v OHIM — Uhse (69 Sex up)
(Case T-125/10)
2010/C 148/59
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Amecke Fruchtsaft GmbH & Co. KG (Menden, 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 of OHIM: Beate Uhse Einzelhandels GmbH (Flensburg, Germany)

Form of order sought







—


Declare the application, together with the annexes submitted, made against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2010 in Case R 612/2009-1, admissible; and










—


Annul the contested decision on the ground of incompatibility with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94; (1)











—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Beate Uhse Einzelhandels GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘69 Sex up’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 9, 29, 30, 32, 33, 38 and 41 (application No 5 418 108)

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘sex:h:up’ No 305 31 669.9 for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: To uphold the opposition for all disputed goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: To rescind the contested decision and reject the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, since there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Commission Regulation (EU) No 228/2010 of 18 March 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Patata di Bologna (PDO))
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, designation of origin, location of production, potato, product designation








L_2010069EN.01000101.xml










19.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 69/1








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 228/2010
of 18 March 2010
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Patata di Bologna (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Patata di Bologna’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 March 2010.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ C 186, 8.8.2009, p. 23.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

ITALY
Patata di Bologna (PDO)
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010067EN.01000301.xml










18.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 67/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

17 March 2010
2010/C 67/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3756




JPY


Japanese yen


124,43




DKK


Danish krone


7,4406




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89620




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7403




CHF


Swiss franc


1,4511




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,0100




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,402




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


262,24




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7078




PLN


Polish zloty


3,8682




RON


Romanian leu


4,0812




TRY


Turkish lira


2,0821




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4898




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3902




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,6769




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,9226




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,9165




KRW


South Korean won


1 552,22




ZAR


South African rand


10,0132




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,3898




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2577




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 562,44




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5330




PHP


Philippine peso


62,711




RUB


Russian rouble


40,1270




THB


Thai baht


44,465




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4222




MXN


Mexican peso


17,1792




INR


Indian rupee


62,3800






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-3/09: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Erotic Center BVBA v Belgische Staat (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 12(3)(a) — Annexe H — Reduced rate of VAT — Concept of admissions to a cinema — Individual cubicles for watching films on demand)
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, audiovisual production, cinema, intellectual property, interpretation of the law, television








C_2010134EN.01000702.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/7





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Erotic Center BVBA v Belgische Staat
(Case C-3/09) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 12(3)(a) - Annexe H - Reduced rate of VAT - Concept of admissions to a cinema - Individual cubicles for watching films on demand)
2010/C 134/11
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Erotic Center BVBA

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Beroep te Gent — Interpretation of Annex H, Category 7 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)(now Annex III, No. 7 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Reduced rate applicable to certain supplies of goods and services — Cinemas — Meaning — Individual cubicle for viewing films on demand

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of admissions to a cinema referred to in the first paragraph of Category 7 in Annex H to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2001/4/EC of 19 January 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not cover the payment made by a customer so as to be able to watch on his own one or more films, or extracts from films, in private cubicles such as those in issue in the main proceedings.


(1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.
Case C-136/09: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos — Greece) — Organismos Sillogikis Diakhirisis Dimiourgon Theatrikon kai Optikoakoustikon Ergon v Divani Acropolis Hotel and Tourism AE (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Copyright and related rights in the information society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 3 — Concept of ‘communication to the public’ — Works communicated by means of television sets installed in hotel rooms)
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, anti-discriminatory measure, audiovisual equipment, equal treatment, hotel industry, hotel profession, interpretation of the law, television








C_2010179EN.01001402.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/14






Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos — Greece) — Organismos Sillogikis Diakhirisis Dimiourgon Theatrikon kai Optikoakoustikon Ergon v Divani Acropolis Hotel and Tourism AE
(Case C-136/09) (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3 - Concept of ‘communication to the public’ - Works communicated by means of television sets installed in hotel rooms)
(2010/C 179/23)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Arios Pagos

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Organismos Sillogikis Diakhirisis Dimiourgon Theatrikon kai Optikoakoustikon Ergon

Defendant: Divani Acropolis Hotel and Tourism AE

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hellenic Chamber of Hotels

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arios Pagos — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Concept of ‘communication to the public’ — Works transmitted by means of television sets installed in hotel rooms and connected to the central antenna of the hotel with no other action by the hotel to ensure reception of a signal by hotel customers

Operative part of the order

The hotelier, by installing televisions in his hotel rooms and by connecting them to the central antenna of the hotel, thereby, and without more, carries out an act of communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.


(1)  OJ C 141, of 20.06.2009.