do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-211/10: Action brought on 3 May 2010 — Strålfors Aktiebolag v OHMI (ID SOLUTIONS)
Date: 2010-05-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Sweden, action for annulment (EU), labelling, office supplies, services company, trade-mark law








C_2010195EN.01002101.xml










17.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/21





Action brought on 3 May 2010 — Strålfors Aktiebolag v OHMI (ID SOLUTIONS)
(Case T-211/10)
2010/C 195/34
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Strålfors AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: M. Nielsen, lawyer)

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

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 25 January 2010 in case R 1111/2009-2;










—


Approve for registration the Community trade mark application No 8235202 ‘ID SOLUTIONS’ for ‘labels and boxes made from paper and cardboard (not for identification of individuals); bookbinding material; adhesives for stationery or household purposes, artists’ materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks’ in class 16; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ID SOLUTIONS’ for goods in class 16 — Community trade mark application No 8235202

Decision of the examiner: Partially refused registration of the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and confirmed the contested decision

Pleas in law: The applicant claims that the Community trade mark application No 8235202 ‘ID SOLUTIONS’ should be allowed for registration for goods in class 16 because ‘ID SOLUTIONS’ is distinctive for these goods and thus meets with the requirements according to Article 4 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-209/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 3 May 2010 — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet
Date: 2010-05-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, competition policy, dominant position, interpretation of the law, postal and telecommunications services, price reduction








C_2010179EN.01002501.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/25






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 3 May 2010 — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet
(Case C-209/10)
(2010/C 179/40)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Post Danmark A/S

Defendant: Konkurrencerådet

Intervener: Forbruger-Kontakt a-s

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 82 EC to be interpreted as meaning that selective price reductions on the part of a dominant postal undertaking that has a universal service obligation to a level lower than the postal undertaking’s average overall costs, but higher than the provider’s average incremental costs, can constitute exclusionary abuse, if it is established that the prices are not set at that level for the purpose of eliminating a competitor?










2.


If the answer to question 1 is that a selective price reduction in the circumstances outlined in question 1 can, in certain circumstances, constitute exclusionary abuse, what are the circumstances that the national court should take into account?
Commission Regulation (EU) No 378/2010 of 3 May 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2010-05-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit








L_2010111EN.01001701.xml










4.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 111/17








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 378/2010
of 3 May 2010
         
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 4 May 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 May 2010.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Jean-Luc DEMARTY
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.




ANNEX
Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables







(EUR/100 kg)




CN code


Third country code (1)



Standard import value




0702 00 00 


JO 


68,6 




MA 


126,4 




TN 


107,3 




TR 


95,9 




ZZ 


99,6 




0707 00 05 


MA 


61,4 




TR 


111,2 




ZZ 


86,3 




0709 90 70 


TR 


105,8 




ZZ 


105,8 




0805 10 20 


EG 


56,8 




IL 


69,6 




MA 


60,6 




TN 


47,1 




TR 


54,8 




ZZ 


57,8 




0805 50 10 


TR 


66,3 




ZA 


77,8 




ZZ 


72,1 




0808 10 80 


AR 


82,0 




BR 


79,2 




CA 


80,5 




CL 


79,7 




CN 


81,9 




MK 


22,1 




NZ 


107,9 




US 


126,4 




UY 


93,0 




ZA 


92,6 




ZZ 


84,5 






(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
            ZZ
            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.
Case C-212/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach (Republic of Poland), lodged on 3 May 2010 — Logstor ROR Polska Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Katowicach
Date: 2010-05-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, claim, economic concentration, indirect tax, interpretation of the law, tax collection








C_2010209EN.01001301.xml










31.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/13





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach (Republic of Poland), lodged on 3 May 2010 — Logstor ROR Polska Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Katowicach
(Case C-212/10)
()
2010/C 209/20
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Logstor ROR Polska Sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Katowicach

Question referred

Did Article 4(2) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, (1) as amended with effect from 17 June 1985 by Article 1(1) of Directive 85/303/EEC (2) of 10 June 1985, entitle a Member State to reintroduce, as from 1 January 2007, capital duty on a loan taken up by a capital company, if the creditor is entitled to a share in the profits of that company, in the case where the Member State had previously waived the charging of that duty as from the date of accession, that is to say, from 1 May 2004?


(1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.

(2)  Council Directive amending Directive 69/335/EEC concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 1985 L 156, pp. 23-24).
Case T-212/10: Action brought on 3 May 2010 — Strålfors Aktiebolag v OHMI (IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS)
Date: 2010-05-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Sweden, action for annulment (EU), labelling, office supplies, services company, trade-mark law








C_2010195EN.01002102.xml










17.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/21





Action brought on 3 May 2010 — Strålfors Aktiebolag v OHMI (IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS)
(Case T-212/10)
2010/C 195/35
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Strålfors AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: M. Nielsen, lawyer)

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

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 22 January 2010 in case R 1112/2009-2;










—


Approve for registration the Community trade mark application No 8235186 ‘IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS’ for ‘labels and boxes made from paper and cardboard (not for identification of individuals); bookbinding material; adhesives for stationery or household purposes, artists’ materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks’ in class 16; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS’ for goods in class 16 — Community trade mark application No 8235186

Decision of the examiner: Partially refused registration of the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and confirmed the contested decision

Pleas in law: The applicant claims that the Community trade mark application No 8235186 ‘IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS’ should be allowed for registration for goods in class 16 because ‘IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS’ is distinctive for these goods and thus meets with the requirements according to Article 4 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-210/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Biróság (Hungary) lodged on 3 May 2010 — Márton Urbán v Vám- és Pénzügyörség Észak-alföldi regionális Parancsnoksága
Date: 2010-05-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, interpretation of the law, principle of proportionality, road transport, vehicle documents








C_2010195EN.01000701.xml










17.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Biróság (Hungary) lodged on 3 May 2010 — Márton Urbán v Vám- és Pénzügyörség Észak-alföldi regionális Parancsnoksága
(Case C-210/10)
2010/C 195/11
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Biróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Márton Urbán

Defendant: Vám- és Pénzügyörség Észak-alföldi regionális Parancsnoksága

Questions referred







1.


Is a system of penalties under which it is mandatory to impose identical financial penalties of up to HUF 100 000 for any breach of the requirements laid down in Articles 13 to 16 of Council Regulation No 3821/85/EEC (1) concerning the use of record sheets for recording equipment in road transport consistent with the requirement of proportionality laid down by Article 19(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85?










2.


Is a system of penalties which does not adjust the amount of the penalty according to the gravity of the breach of the rules consistent with the requirement of proportionality?










3.


Is a system of penalties which does not allow of any possible defence to a breach of the rules consistent with the requirement of proportionality?










4.


Is a system of penalties which makes no distinction according to the personal circumstances of the offenders consistent with the requirement of proportionality?






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport; OJ 1985 L 370, p. 8, Special edition in Hungarian, Chapter 7, Volume 1, p. 227.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (Text with EEA relevance) — Declaration; OJ 1998 L 102, p. 1.