do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-347/10: Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Adelholzener Alpenquellen v OHIM (Shape of a bottle with a relief-like depiction of three mountain summits)
Date: 2010-08-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, mineral water, packaging product, trade-mark law








C_2010288EN.01005201.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/52






Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Adelholzener Alpenquellen v OHIM (Shape of a bottle with a relief-like depiction of three mountain summits)
(Case T-347/10)
()
(2010/C 288/96)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Adelholzener Alpenquellen GmbH (Siegsdorf, Germany) (represented by O. Rauscher, lawyer)

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

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 9 June 2010 in Case R 1516/2009-1;










—


Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the three-dimensional mark in the shape of a bottle with a relief-like depiction of three mountain summits for goods in Class 32

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as the Community trade mark at issue has distinctive character; infringement of Article 37(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal should not have based its decision on the absence of a disclaimer; and infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 as the applicant was unable to comment on certain depictions on which the decision was based


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case T-357/10: Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Kraft Foods Schweiz v OHIM — Compañía Nacional de Chocolates (CORONA)
Date: 2010-08-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, confectionery product, trade-mark law








C_2010288EN.01005601.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/56






Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Kraft Foods Schweiz v OHIM — Compañía Nacional de Chocolates (CORONA)
(Case T-357/10)
()
(2010/C 288/104)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding GmbH (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Péters and T. de Haan, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compañía Nacional de Chocolates SA (Medellín, Colombia)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 June 2010 in case R 696/2009-4; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


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

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘CORONA’, for goods in class 30

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

Mark or sign cited: Estonian trade mark registration No 20671 of the word mark ‘KARUNA’, for goods in class 30; Latvian trade mark registration No M36592 of the word mark ‘KARUNA’, for goods in class 30; Lithuanian trade mark registration No 28143 of the word mark ‘KARŪNA’, for goods in class 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the opposition division and rejected the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly excluded likelihood of confusion; infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that the marks are not similar or identical.
Case T-363/10: Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Abbott Laboratories v OHIM (RESTORE)
Date: 2010-08-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, medical device, trade-mark law








C_2010288EN.01005801.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/58






Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Abbott Laboratories v OHIM (RESTORE)
(Case T-363/10)
()
(2010/C 288/107)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Abbott Laboratories (Abbott Park, Illinois, United States of America) (represented by M. Kinkeldey, S. Schäffler and J. Springer, lawyers)

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

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 9 June 2010 in Case R 1560/2009-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘RESTORE’ for goods in Class 10

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:







 


Infringement of the right to be heard as the Board of Appeal referred in its decision to evidence which was not adduced by the applicant;










 


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as the mark applied for is not a term which directly describes the goods covered by the application;










 


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 as the mark applied for has the required distinctive character.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case C-423/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 27 August 2010 — Delphi Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf
Date: 2010-08-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, electrical equipment, interpretation of the law, tariff nomenclature








C_2010317EN.01001602.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 27 August 2010 — Delphi Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf
(Case C-423/10)
()
2010/C 317/30
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Delphi Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

Question referred

Do the electrical connectors described in this Order come under subheading 8536 69 of the Combined Nomenclature in the version resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, (3) which were adopted to amend Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2005 L 286, p. 1.

(3)  OJ 2006 L 301, p. 1.
Europol review : general report on Europol activities.
Date: 2010-08-27
Institutions: Europol
Subjects: Europol, activity report

EU Law EnforcEmEnt agEnciEs

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

UK

27 500

51 745

30 707

6 670

48 300

10 740

8 900

10 678

261 772

266 000

75 300

50 733

20 730

337 000

8 616

19 220

1 602 

3 539

63 110

133 600 

48 395

98 344

26 195

9 363

150 485

22 205

176 700

Police nationale

Figures in left-hand column detail the number of law enforcement agents employed in EU Member States.  

Logos on map are those of EU Member States’ law enforcement agencies.
Case C-422/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 27 August 2010 — Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
Date: 2010-08-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: health certificate, interpretation of the law, legal code, marketing standard, medicinal product, pharmaceutical legislation, public health, veterinary drug








C_2010301EN.01001202.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 27 August 2010 — Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
(Case C-422/10)
()
2010/C 301/17
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago

Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Question referred







1.


Does the SPC Regulation and, in particular, Article 3(b), permit the grant of a Supplementary Protection Certificate for a single active ingredient or combination of active ingredients where:






(a)


a basic patent in force protects the single active ingredient or combination of active ingredients within the meaning of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation; and










(b)


a medicinal product containing the single active ingredient or combination of active ingredients together with one or more other active ingredients is the subject of a valid authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC (1) or 2001/82/EC (2) which is the first marketing authorization that places the single active ingredient or combination of active ingredients on the market?










(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use
OJ L 311, p. 67

(2)  Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products
OJ L 311, p. 1
Case F-70/10: Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Hidalgo v European Parliament
Date: 2010-08-27
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action for annulment, indemnification








C_2010288EN.01007502.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/75






Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Hidalgo v European Parliament
(Case F-70/10)
()
(2010/C 288/143)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: José Manuel Hidalgo (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Coolen, J.N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for the annulment of the applicant’s salary adjustment slip for the period from July to December 2009 and the salary slips issued since 1 January 2010 within the framework of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Communities pursuant to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009 and a claim for compensation.

Forms of order sought







—


Declare that Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009 is not applicable;










—


Annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 4 June 2010 rejecting the applicant's complaint regarding his salary adjustment slip for the period from July to December 2009 and his salary slips issued since 1 January 2010 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009;










—


Annul, where necessary, the decisions of the European Parliament on the establishment of his salary adjustment slip for the period from July to December 2009 and his salary slips issued since 1 January 2010 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009;










—


Order the Parliament to pay the applicant the arrears of remuneration to which he is entitled, plus default interest calculated, from the date those arrears were due, at the rate laid down by the ECB for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;










—


Order the Parliament to pay the applicant a symbolic sum of EUR 1 to compensate for breaches of administrative duty and to pay the costs.