do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-348/10: Action brought on 16 August 2010 — Panzeri v OHIM — Royal Trophy (Royal veste e premia lo sport)
Date: 2010-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, clothing, sports facilities, trade-mark law








C_2010288EN.01005202.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/52






Action brought on 16 August 2010 — Panzeri v OHIM — Royal Trophy (Royal veste e premia lo sport)
(Case T-348/10)
()
(2010/C 288/97)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Panzeri (Monguzzi, Italy) (represented by: C. Galli, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Royal Trophy Srl (Cava di Tirreni, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 20 May 2010 and the decision of the Opposition Division of 30 June 2009;










—


declare that the applicant’s opposition to the application for registration of mark No 5 285 507 is upheld and reject the application for that mark in respect of goods in Class 25 (Clothing) and Class 28 (gymnastic and sporting articles not included in other classes) and/or adopt such other measure as the Court may deem appropriate;










—


order Royal Trophy Srl to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Royal Trophy Srl

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Royal veste e premia lo sport’ (Registration application No 5 285 507) for goods in Classes 25 and 28

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark (No 1533504) and international word mark (No 5769068) ‘VESTE LO SPORT’ for goods in Class 25, and figurative mark ‘PANZERI veste lo sport’, not registered but used in the course of trade, for ‘clothing and, in particular, sportswear’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark
Case C-409/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 16 August 2010 — Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen v Afasia Knits Deutschland GmbH
Date: 2010-08-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, export refund, interpretation of the law








C_2010274EN.01002101.xml










9.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/21





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 16 August 2010 — Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen v Afasia Knits Deutschland GmbH
(Case C-409/10)
()
2010/C 274/33
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

Respondent: Afasia Knits Deutschland GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is it compatible with Article 32 of Protocol 1 concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, (1) if the European Commission essentially takes it upon itself to undertake the subsequent verification of proofs of origin in the exporting country, albeit with the assistance of the authorities of that country, and does it constitute a result of this verification within the meaning of that article if the results of the verification so obtained by the Commission are recorded in a report that is co-signed by a representative of the government of the exporting country?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can the person liable for the duty in a case such as the action in the main proceedings — in which the exporting country has declared proofs of preferential origin issued during a particular period to be invalid because the origin of the goods could not be confirmed by subsequent verification even though it could not be ruled out that some export goods satisfied the origin requirements — rely on the protection of legitimate expectations on the basis of the second and third subparagraphs of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2) and claim that the preference certificates presented in his case may have been correct and were therefore based on a correct account of the facts provided by the exporter?






(1)  2000/483/EC: Partnership agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (OJ 2000 L 317, p. 3)

(2)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1
Case C-408/10: Action brought on 16 August 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
Date: 2010-08-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, electrical equipment, technical regulations, veterinary medicine








C_2010274EN.01002002.xml










9.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/20





Action brought on 16 August 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
(Case C-408/10)
()
2010/C 274/32
Language of the case: Estonian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Form of order sought







—


declare that the Republic of Estonia has failed to notify the measures necessary to transpose Directive 2008/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 repealing Council Directive 84/539/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to electro-medical equipment used in veterinary medicine; (1)











—


order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 31 December 2008.


(1)  OJ 2008 L 76, p. 41.
Case C-407/10: Action brought on 16 August 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
Date: 2010-08-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, chemical product, marketing, medical device, occupational safety








C_2010274EN.01002001.xml










9.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/20





Action brought on 16 August 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
(Case C-407/10)
()
2010/C 274/31
Language of the case: Estonian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Form of order sought







—


declare that the Republic of Estonia has failed to notify the measures necessary to transpose Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 90/385/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices, Council Directive 93/42/EEC concerning medical devices and Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market; (1)











—


order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 21 December 2008.


(1)  OJ 2007 L 247, p. 21.