do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-214/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 — Anheuser-Busch Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Application for registration of the word mark BUDWEISER — Opposition — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 40/94 — Earlier international word and figurative marks BUDWEISER and Budweiser Budvar — Genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 — Submission of evidence ‘in due time’ — Certificate of renewal for the earlier mark — Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94)
Date: 2010-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, alcoholic beverage, appeal, beer, trade-mark law








C_2010246EN.01000802.xml










11.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/8





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 — Anheuser-Busch Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik
(Case C-214/09 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Application for registration of the word mark BUDWEISER - Opposition - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 40/94 - Earlier international word and figurative marks BUDWEISER and Budweiser Budvar - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 - Submission of evidence ‘in due time’ - Certificate of renewal for the earlier mark - Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94)
2010/C 246/13
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Anheuser-Busch Inc. (represented by: V. von Bomhard and B. Goebel, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral), Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (represented by: K. Čermák, advokát)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 March 2009 in Case T-191/07 Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) by which that Court dismissed an action brought by the applicant for the word mark “BUDWEISER” for goods in class 32 seeking annulment of Decision R 299/2006-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2007, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of the mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the international figurative and word marks “BUDWEISER” and “Budweiser Budvar” for goods in classes 31 and 32.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Anheuser-Busch Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 683/2010 of 29 July 2010 fixing the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EU) No 462/2010
Date: 2010-07-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Spain, award of contract, import licence, maize, originating product, tariff reduction, third country








L_2010198EN.01001101.xml










30.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 198/11








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 683/2010
of 29 July 2010
         
fixing the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EU) No 462/2010


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), and in particular Article 144(1) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain from third countries was opened by Commission Regulation (EU) No 462/2010 (2).












(2)


Under Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 of 18 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of tariff quotas for imports of maize and sorghum into Spain and imports of maize into Portugal (3) the Commission, in accordance the procedure laid down in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, may decide to fix a maximum reduction in the import duty. In fixing this maximum the criteria provided for in Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 must be taken into account.












(3)


A contract is awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less than the maximum reduction in the duty.












(4)


The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For tenders lodged from 16 July to 29 July 2010 under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EU) No 462/2010, the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported shall be 5,50 EUR/t for a total maximum quantity of 49 000 t.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 July 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 July 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 129, 28.5.2010, p. 58.

(3)  
            OJ L 340, 19.12.2008, p. 57.
Corrigendum to Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP ( OJ L 195, 27.7.2010 )
Date: 2010-07-29
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Iran, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation, removal, trade restriction








L_2010197EN.01001901.xml










29.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 197/19







Corrigendum to Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 195 of 27 July 2010
)

In the title of the Decision in the content on the cover page:
for:


                  ‘2010/413/CFSP
Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP’,

read:


                        ‘Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP’;

on page 39
for:


                        ‘COUNCIL DECISION of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP’,

read:


                        ‘COUNCIL DECISION 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP’.
Case C-384/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België, lodged on 29 July 2010 — Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA
Date: 2010-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, contract, interpretation of the law, labour law, private international law, work contract, workplace








C_2010317EN.01001401.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/14





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België, lodged on 29 July 2010 — Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA
(Case C-384/10)
()
2010/C 317/26
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Jan Voogsgeerd

Respondent: Navimer SA

Questions referred







1.


Must the country in which the place of business is situated through which an employee was engaged, within the meaning of Article 6(2)(b) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, (1) be taken to mean the country in which the place of business of the employer is situated through which, according to the contract of employment, the employee was engaged, or the country in which the place of business of the employer is situated with which the employee is connected for his actual employment, even though that employee does not habitually carry out his work in any one country?










2.


Must the place to which an employee who does not habitually carry out his work in any one country is obliged to report and where he receives administrative briefings, as well as instructions for the performance of his work, be deemed to be the place of actual employment within the meaning of the first question?










3.


Must the place of business with which the employee is connected for his actual employment within the meaning of the first question satisfy certain formal requirements such as, inter alia, the possession of legal personality, or does the existence of a de facto place of business suffice for that purpose?










4.


Can the place of business of another company, with which the corporate employer is connected, serve as the place of business within the meaning of the third question, even though the authority of the employer has not been transferred to that other company?






(1)  OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1.