do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-140/10: Action brought on 26 March 2010 — Hans Günter Söns v OHIM — Settimio (GREAT CHINA WALL)
Date: 2010-03-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2010148EN.01003902.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/39





Action brought on 26 March 2010 — Hans Günter Söns v OHIM — Settimio (GREAT CHINA WALL)
(Case T-140/10)
2010/C 148/66
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Hans Günter Söns (Wehr, Germany) (represented by: M. Schwabe, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alfredo Settimio (Los Angeles, United States)

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 26 January 2010 in case R 281/2009-1;










—


Order the defendant to declare invalid the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for invalidity; and










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for invalidity: The word mark “GREAT CHINA WALL” for goods in classes 18, 24 and 25

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Party requesting the revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(c) and (g) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly applied the legal provisions in question; infringement of international agreements concerning the protection of geographical indications.
Case T-577/08: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2010 — Proges v Commission (Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure — Programme for creation of land use models — Rejection of tenderer’s bid — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Award criteria)
Date: 2010-03-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), building plot, environmental impact, environmental protection, innovation, proportional representation








C_2010134EN.01003301.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/33





Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2010 — Proges v Commission
(Case T-577/08) (1)

(Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Programme for creation of land use models - Rejection of tenderer’s bid - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Award criteria)
2010/C 134/55
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Proges — Progetti di sviluppo Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Falcetta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Bambara and E. Manhaeve, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 29 October 2008 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in a tendering procedure relating to the implementation of a programme for the creation of land use models, and also a claim for damages for the losses incurred by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders Proges — Progetti di sviluppo Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.






(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.
Case T-6/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 26 March 2010 — Sviluppo Globale v Commission (Interim measures — Public contracts — Tendering procedure — Rejection of tender — Application for suspension of operation and interim measures — Loss of opportunity — Lack of serious and irreparable harm — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2010-03-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Kosovo, appeal, invitation to tender, provision of services, summary procedure, tax authorities








C_2010134EN.01003701.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/37





Order of the President of the General Court of 26 March 2010 — Sviluppo Globale v Commission
(Case T-6/10 R)
(Interim measures - Public contracts - Tendering procedure - Rejection of tender - Application for suspension of operation and interim measures - Loss of opportunity - Lack of serious and irreparable harm - Lack of urgency)
2010/C 134/63
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Sviluppo Globale GEIE (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and A. Neri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira, F. Erlbacher and P. Manzini, Agents)

Re:

Application for interim measures concerning call for tenders EUROPEAID/127843/D/SER/KOS for the provision of support services to the customs and tax authorities in Kosovo.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-146/10: Action brought on 26 March 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
Date: 2010-03-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, mining extraction, national implementing measure, waste management








C_2010148EN.01001801.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/18





Action brought on 26 March 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
(Case C-146/10)
2010/C 148/28
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marghelis and M. Adam, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The Commission requests the Court:






—


to declare that, by failing to adopt in full the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, (1) or by failing to notify the Commission in full of those provisions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2006/21/EC;










—


to order the Republic of Austria pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 1 May 2008.


(1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5797 — State Street Corporation/Intesa Sanpaolo Servizi Transazionali/Sanpaolo Bank) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-03-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, financial management, investment company, merger control, private investment, provision of services, securities








C_2010077EN.01000301.xml










26.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5797 — State Street Corporation/Intesa Sanpaolo Servizi Transazionali/Sanpaolo Bank)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 77/03






1.


On 19 March 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the EC Merger Regulation (1), by which State Street Corporation, (‘STT’, USA) will acquire from Banca Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. sole control within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Regulation of Intesa Sanpaolo Servizi Transazionali S.p.A. (Italy) and Sanpaolo Bank S.A. (Luxembourg), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for the STT group: the provision of a full range of securities services to institutional and individual investors worldwide,










—


for Intesa San Paolo Servizi Trasnazionali S.p.A. and Sanpaolo Bank S.A.: global custody and fund administration services to institutional and, to a lesser extent, individual clients located in Italy and in Luxembourg.














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.5797 — State Street Corporation/Intesa Sanpaolo Servizi Transazionali/Sanpaolo Bank, 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’).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5535 — Renesas Technology/NEC Electronics) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-03-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: audiovisual industry, disclosure of information, economic concentration, electronic component, electronics industry, merger control, motor vehicle industry, restrictive-practice authorisation








C_2010077EN.01000101.xml










26.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5535 — Renesas Technology/NEC Electronics)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 77/01
On 2 December 2009, 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 32009M5535. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-91/09: Order of the Court of 26 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Eis.de GmbH v BBY Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Trade marks — Internet — Keyword advertising — Display, on the basis of a keyword identical to a trade mark, of an advert of a competitor to the proprietor of that trade mark — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(1)(a))
Date: 2010-03-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, document indexing, interpretation of the law, search engine








C_2010234EN.01001801.xml










28.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/18





Order of the Court of 26 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Eis.de GmbH v BBY Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH
(Case C-91/09) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Trade marks - Internet - Keyword advertising - Display, on the basis of a keyword identical to a trade mark, of an advert of a competitor to the proprietor of that trade mark - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5(1)(a))
2010/C 234/26
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Eis.de GmbH

Defendant: BBY Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof Karlsruhe — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) of 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) — Inscription of a sign similar to a trade mark with a service provider operating an Internet search engine in order automatically to have displayed on the screen, after entry of that sign as a search term, adverts for goods or services identical to those for which the trade mark in question was registered (‘keyword advertising’) — Absence of authorisation from the proprietor of the trade mark — Classification of that use of the mark as ‘use’ within the meaning of the provision cited above

Operative part of the order

Article 5(1)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to prohibit an advertiser from advertising, on the basis of a keyword identical with that trade mark which that advertiser has, without the consent of the proprietor, selected in connection with an internet referencing service, goods or services identical with those for which that mark is registered, in the case where that advertisement does not enable an average internet user, or enables that user only with difficulty to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to therein originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party.


(1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 26 March 2010 in the case of Þór Kolbeinsson v the Icelandic State (Case E-2/10)
Date: 2010-03-26
Institutions: Iceland
Subjects: EFTA Court, EU law - national law, Iceland, accident prevention, building industry, indemnification, occupational safety, safety standard








C_2010325EN.01002101.xml










2.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/21





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 26 March 2010 in the case of Þór Kolbeinsson v the Icelandic State
(Case E-2/10)
2010/C 325/05
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 26 March 2010 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 6 April 2010, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Þór Kolbeinsson v the Icelandic State, on the following questions:






1.


Is it compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) that a worker, due to his own contributory negligence, is held liable for losses suffered as a result of an accident at work, when it has been established that the employer has not on his own initiative complied with rules regarding safety and conditions in the work place?










2.


If the answer to the above question is in the negative, is the Icelandic State then liable to award damages to a worker who suffered an accident at work and had to, contrary to the aforementioned directives, partly or wholly bear the losses suffered, due to his own contributory negligence, on the grounds that the State had not correctly implemented these directives into Icelandic law?