do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
The lack of a transparent process for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and potentially objectionable content Declaration of the European Parliament of 9 September 2010 on the lack of a transparent process for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and potentially objectionable content
Date: 2010-09-09
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: Internet, border control, data protection, fundamental rights, industrial counterfeiting, medicinal product








CE2011308EN.01008801.xml










20.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 308/88





Thursday 9 September 2010The lack of a transparent process for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and potentially objectionable content
P7_TA(2010)0317
Declaration of the European Parliament of 9 September 2010 on the lack of a transparent process for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and potentially objectionable content
2011/C 308 E/17

The European Parliament,
having regard to Rule 123 of its Rules of Procedure,






A.


whereas negotiations concerning the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) are ongoing,










B.


whereas Parliament’s co-decision role in commercial matters and its access to negotiation documents are guaranteed by the Lisbon Treaty,










1.


Takes the view that the proposed agreement should not indirectly impose harmonisation of EU copyright, patent or trademark law, and that the principle of subsidiarity should be respected;










2.


Declares that the Commission should immediately make all documents related to the ongoing negotiations publicly available;










3.


Takes the view that the proposed agreement should not force limitations upon judicial due process or weaken fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and the right to privacy;










4.


Stresses that economic and innovation risks must be evaluated prior to introducing criminal sanctions where civil measures are already in place;










5.


Takes the view that internet service providers should not bear liability for the data they transmit or host through their services to an extent that would necessitate prior surveillance or filtering of such data;










6.


Points out that any measure aimed at strengthening powers of cross-border inspection and seizure of goods should not harm global access to legal, affordable and safe medicines;










7.


Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories (1), to the Commission, the Council and the parliaments of the Member States.






(1)  The list of signatories is published in Annex 1 to the Minutes of 9 September 2010 (P7_PV(2010)09-09(ANN1)).
Case T-458/08: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Wilfer v OHIM (Representation of the head of a guitar) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing the head of a guitar in silver, grey and brown — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Examination of the facts of its own motion — Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Obligation to state reasons — The first sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) — Equal treatment)
Date: 2010-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), equal treatment, musical instrument, trade-mark law








C_2010288EN.01003502.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/35






Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Wilfer v OHIM (Representation of the head of a guitar)
(Case T-458/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing the head of a guitar in silver, grey and brown - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Examination of the facts of its own motion - Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - The first sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) - Equal treatment)
(2010/C 288/67)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hans-Peter Wilfer (Markeneukirchen, Germany) (represented by: A. Kockläuner, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2008 (Case R 78/2007-4), concerning the registration as a Community trade mark of the figurative sign representing the head of a guitar in the colours silver, grey and brown.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hans-Peter Wilfer to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2008.
Case T-74/08: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Now Pharm v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Orphan Designation Procedure — Request for designation of the medicinal product ‘Chelidonii radix special liquid extract’ ( ‘Ukrain’ ) as an orphan medicinal product — Commission decision refusing designation as an orphan medicinal product)
Date: 2010-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), drugs classification, market approval, medicinal product, pharmaceutical legislation








C_2010288EN.01003302.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/33






Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Now Pharm v Commission
(Case T-74/08) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Orphan Designation Procedure - Request for designation of the medicinal product ‘Chelidonii radix special liquid extract’ (‘Ukrain’) as an orphan medicinal product - Commission decision refusing designation as an orphan medicinal product)
(2010/C 288/63)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Now Pharm AG (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: initially C. Kaletta and I.-J. Tegebauer and subsequently C. Kaletta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 6132, of 4 December 2007 refusing the designation of the medicinal product ‘Chelidonii radix special liquid extract’ as an orphan medicinal product under Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders Now Pharm AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.
Case T-387/10: Action brought on 9 September 2010 — Goutier v OHIM — Eurodata (ARANTAX)
Date: 2010-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, clothing industry, trade-mark law








C_2010301EN.01004501.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/45





Action brought on 9 September 2010 — Goutier v OHIM — Eurodata (ARANTAX)
(Case T-387/10)
()
2010/C 301/72
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Klaus Goutier (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: E.E. Happe, 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: Eurodata GmbH & Co KG (Saarbrücken, Germany)

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 1 July 2010 in Case R 126/2009-4, to the extent that the Community trade mark application was, by setting aside the contested decision, rejected in respect of the following services:
Class 35– Tax consultancy, tax preparation, accounting, auditing, professional business consultancy, business consultancy
Class 36– Fiscal assessments, mergers and acquisitions, namely financial consultancy with regard to the purchase or sale of companies and company shares;
Class 42– Provision of legal services, legal research;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Klaus Goutier.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ARANTAX’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 42.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Eurodata GmbH & Co KG.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘ANTAX’ for services in Classes 35, 36, 41, 42 and 45.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial setting aside of the decision of the Opposition Division and partial rejection of the Community trade mark application.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 15 and 43 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) because proof of use had not been provided, and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, because there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)
Case C-265/09 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2010 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v BORCO-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG (Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for registration of the figurative sign ‘α’ — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Mark consisting of a single letter)
Date: 2010-09-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), action for annulment, trade-mark law








C_2010288EN.01001301.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/13






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2010 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v BORCO-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-265/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for registration of the figurative sign ‘α’ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Mark consisting of a single letter)
(2010/C 288/19)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: BORCO-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: M. Wolter, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2009 in Case T-23/07 Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHIM (α), by which the Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2006, dismissing the action brought against the decision of the examiner refusing the registration of the figurative sign ‘α’ as a Community trade mark for goods in Class 33 — Distinctive character of a mark consisting of a single letter

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


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






(1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.
Case T-582/08: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Carpent Languages v Commission (Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure — Organisation of meetings and conferences — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment)
Date: 2010-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Community budget, EU publication, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, damages, equal treatment, invitation to tender








C_2010288EN.01003702.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/37






Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Carpent Languages v Commission
(Case T-582/08) (1)

(Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Organisation of meetings and conferences - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment)
(2010/C 288/71)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Carpent Languages (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Goergen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Simon and E. Manhaeve, Agents, and by F. Tulkens and V. Ost, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the Commission’s decision of 30 October 2008 rejecting the applicant’s bid for lot No 4 ‘Provision of teams of interpreters according to the linguistic requirements of each event’ of contract notice VT/2008/036 (Multiple framework contracts for meeting and conference organisation services), and the Commission’s decision of 17 November 2008 appointing the successful tenderer of lot No 4, and an application for a declaration that the Commission be ordered to pay damages in the event that the General Court does not grant the application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s bid.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Carpent Languages SPRL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.
Case T-264/07: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — CSL Behring v Commission and EMA (Medicinal products for human use — Procedure for designation of orphan medicinal products — Application for designation of human fibrinogen as an orphan medicinal product — Obligation to submit the application for designation before the application for marketing authorisation is made — Decision of EMA on the validity of the application)
Date: 2010-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, European Medicines Agency, action for annulment, intellectual property, market approval, medicinal product, pharmaceutical industry








C_2010288EN.01003102.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/31






Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — CSL Behring v Commission and EMA
(Case T-264/07) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Procedure for designation of orphan medicinal products - Application for designation of human fibrinogen as an orphan medicinal product - Obligation to submit the application for designation before the application for marketing authorisation is made - Decision of EMA on the validity of the application)
(2010/C 288/59)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: CSL Behring GmbH (Marburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Koenig, Professor, and F. Leinen, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and B. Schima, Agents) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), (represented by V. Salvatore, Agent, T. Eicke, Barrister and C. Sherliker, Solicitor

Intervener in support of the defendant European Commission: European Parliament (represented by E. Waldherr and I. Anagnostopoulou, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of 24 May 2007 of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) declaring invalid the applicant’s application for designation of human fibrinogen as an orphan medicinal product within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders CSL Behring GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission and of the European Medicines Agency (EMA);










3.


Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.
Case T-119/06: Judgment of the General Court of (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 — Usha Martin Ltd v Council of the European Union and European Commission (Dumping — Imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in India — Breach of an undertaking — Principle of proportionality — Article 8(1), (7) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 8(1), (7) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
Date: 2010-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, India, action for annulment, anti-dumping legislation, import, originating product, section, steel








C_2010288EN.01003002.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/30






Judgment of the General Court of (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 — Usha Martin Ltd v Council of the European Union and European Commission
(Case T-119/06) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in India - Breach of an undertaking - Principle of proportionality - Article 8(1), (7) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 8(1), (7) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
(2010/C 288/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Usha Martin Ltd (Kolkata, India) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer, and J. Branton, Solicitor, V. Akritidis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by G. Berrisch, lawyer); and European Commission (represented by: P. Stancanelli and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/38/EC of 22 December 2005 amending Commission Decision 1999/572/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of steel wire ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in India (OJ 2006 L 22, p. 54), and Council Regulation (EC) No 121/2006 of 23 January 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in India (OJ 2006 L 22, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Usha Martin Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 797/2010 of 9 September 2010 not fixing a minimum selling price in response to the sixth individual invitation to tender for the sale of butter within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010
Date: 2010-09-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, butter, market intervention, minimum price, selling price








L_2010239EN.01000501.xml










10.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 239/5








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 797/2010
of 9 September 2010
         
not fixing a minimum selling price in response to the sixth individual invitation to tender for the sale of butter within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010


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 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Regulation (EU) No 446/2010 (2) has opened the sales of butter by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).












(2)


In the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.












(3)


In the light of the tenders received for the sixth individual invitation to tender, no minimum selling price should be fixed.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For the sixth individual invitation to tender for selling of butter within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 446/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 7 September 2010, no minimum selling price for butter shall be fixed.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 September 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 September 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 126, 22.5.2010, p. 17.

(3)  
            OJ L 349, 29.12.2009, p. 1.
Case C-290/10 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 — Franssons Verkstäder AB v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Lindner Recyclingtech GmbH (Appeal — Action before the General Court against a decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Time-limit allowed for bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility due to delay — Appeal clearly unfounded)
Date: 2010-09-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, agricultural machinery, appeal, trade-mark law








C_2011080EN.01000903.xml










12.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/9





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 — Franssons Verkstäder AB v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Lindner Recyclingtech GmbH
(Case C-290/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action before the General Court against a decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Time-limit allowed for bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility due to delay - Appeal clearly unfounded)
2011/C 80/17
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Franssons Verkstäder AB (represented by: O. Öhlén, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Lindner Recyclingtech GmbH

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 May 2010 in Case T-98/10 Franssons Verkstäder v OHIM in which the General Court dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of Community design No 253778-0001 (chaffcutters) against decision R 690/2007-3 of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 October 2009 annulling the decision of the Invalidity Division which rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity submitted by Lindner Recyclingtech — Time-limit allowed for bringing proceedings — Clear inadmissibility

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Franssons Verkstäder AB shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.