do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-435/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 13 September 2010 — J.C. van Ardennen v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: employer, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, job application, pay








C_2010317EN.01001801.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/18





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 13 September 2010 — J.C. van Ardennen v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen
(Case C-435/10)
()
2010/C 317/32
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: J.C. van Ardennen

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (UWV)

Questions referred







1.


Must the Insolvency Directive, (1) in particular Articles 4, 5 and 10 thereof, be interpreted in such a way as to render generally incompatible with it a national rule which obliges employees, in the event of the insolvency of their employer, in order to (fully) validate their right to have their outstanding wage claims met, to register as job-seekers at the latest on the first working day after the day on which the employment relationship ended or should reasonably have ended? If not:










2.


Must the Insolvency Directive, in particular Articles 4, 5 and 10 thereof, be interpreted in such a way as to render incompatible with it a national rule which also imposes that registration obligation on employees who engaged in activities in their own business or profession during the notice period?










3.


Must the Insolvency Directive, in particular Articles 4, 5 and 10 thereof, be interpreted in such a way as to render incompatible with it a national rule on the basis of which failure to comply (timeously) with that registration obligation can result in the partial non-payment of the insolvency benefit, where the level and the duration of the partial non-payment measure taken are partly determined by the date of compliance with that obligation?






(1)  Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23)
Case F-77/10: Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Arroyo Redondo v Commission
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment, personnel administration, promotion, regulations for civil servants








C_2010301EN.01006501.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/65





Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Arroyo Redondo v Commission
(Case F-77/10)
()
2010/C 301/105
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Fernando Arroyo Redondo (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the defendant’s decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted to grade AD10 under the 2009 promotion exercise.

Form of order sought







—


annul the Commission decision, published on 20 November 2009, not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted from grade AD9 to AD10 under the 2009 promotion exercise;










—


as a consequence of that annulment, undertake a further comparative examination of the merits of the applicant and those of the other candidates under the 2009 promotion exercise and promote the applicant to AD10 with retroactive effect from 1 March 2009 together with the payment of interest on the arrears of pay at the rate applied by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, from 1 March 2009, increased by 2 points, without however challenging the promotion of the other officials promoted whose names appear on the list published on 20 November 2009;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-410/10: Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Bottega Veneta International v OHIM (Shape of a handbag)
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Luxembourg, action for annulment, clothing industry, trade-mark law








C_2010301EN.01005602.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/56





Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Bottega Veneta International v OHIM (Shape of a handbag)
(Case T-410/10)
()
2010/C 301/90
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Bottega Veneta International Sarl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boletto and E. Gavuzzi, 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 of 16 June 2010 in Case R 1539/2009-1;










—


Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Trade mark consisting of a distinctive three-dimensional sign known as the ‘Cabat’ bag (application for registration No 6632566) for goods in Class 18 (‘bags and handbags’).

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application for registration.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 9(3)(a) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-437/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Vieira do Minho (Portugal) lodged on 13 September 2010 — Manuel Afonso Esteves v Axa — Seguros de Portugal SA
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability, indemnification, interpretation of the law, transport accident








C_2010317EN.01001802.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/18





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Vieira do Minho (Portugal) lodged on 13 September 2010 — Manuel Afonso Esteves v Axa — Seguros de Portugal SA
(Case C-437/10)
()
2010/C 317/33
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial de Vieira do Minho

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Manuel Afonso Esteves

Defendant: Axa — Seguros de Portugal SA

Question referred

In a motor-vehicle collision in which none of the drivers is liable for the accident on the basis of fault, and which has caused personal injury and material loss to one of the drivers (the injured party claiming compensation), is it contrary to Community law, in particular Article 3(1) of the First Directive (72/166/EEC), (1) Article 2(1) of the Second Directive (84/5/EEC) (2) and Article 1 of the Third Directive (90/232/EEC), (3) as those provisions have been interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, for it to be possible to apportion liability for risk (Article 506(1) and (2) of the Portuguese Civil Code) with a direct impact on the amount of compensation to be awarded to the injured party for the material and non-material loss resulting from the personal injuries suffered (since that apportionment of liability for risk will entail a commensurate reduction in the amount of compensation)?


(1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972(II), p. 360).

(2)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

(3)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).
Case T-394/10: Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Grebenshikova v OHIM — Volvo Trademark (SOLVO)
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, motor vehicle industry, trade-mark law








C_2010301EN.01005001.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/50





Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Grebenshikova v OHIM — Volvo Trademark (SOLVO)
(Case T-394/10)
()
2010/C 301/79
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Elena Grebenshikova (St. Petersburg, Russian Federation) (represented by: M. Björkenfeldt, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Göteborg, Sweden)

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 861/2010-1; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘SOLVO’, for goods in class 9

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: United Kingdom trade mark registrations No 747361 of the figurative mark ‘VOLVO’, for a wide range of goods and services; United Kingdom trade mark registrations No 1552528, No 1102971, No 1552529 and No 747362 of the word mark ‘VOLVO’, for a wide range of goods and services; Community trade mark registrations No 2361087 and No 2347193 of the word mark ‘VOLVO’, for inter alia goods and services in classes 9 and 12

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the trade mark application

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly applied the provisions of this Article; violation by the Board of Appeal of a general principle of EU law regarding equal treatment and violation of Article 1 of the Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects on Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), as well as violation of Article 2 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.
Case T-40/06: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Trioplast Industrier v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for industrial plastic sacks — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Seriousness of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Proportionality — Joint and several liability — Principal of legal certainty)
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: fine, industrial product, packaging product, restriction on competition, restrictive trade practice








C_2010301EN.01002201.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/22





Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Trioplast Industrier v Commission
(Case T-40/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for industrial plastic sacks - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Seriousness of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality - Joint and several liability - Principal of legal certainty)
2010/C 301/33
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: Trioplast Industrier AB (Smålandsstenar, Sweden) (represented by: T. Pettersson and O. Larsson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, P. Hellström and V. Bottka, subsequently F. Castillo de la Torre, L. Parpala and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a procedure under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial sacks) concerning an agreement in the market for industrial plastic sacks and, in the alternative, an application for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the first paragraph of Article 2(f) of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 of 30 November 2005 relating to a procedure under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial sacks) in so far as it relates to Trioplast Industrier AB;










2.


Fixes at EUR 2.73 million the amount ascribed to Trioplast Industrier, on the basis of which its share of the successive parent companies’ joint and several liability is to be established for payment of the fine imposed on Trioplast Wittenheim SA;










3.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










4.


Orders Trioplast Industrier to bear half of its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the Commission;










5.


Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Trioplast Industrier.






(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.
Case T-292/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Inditex v OHIM — Marín Díaz de Cerio (OFTEN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark OFTEN — Earlier national word mark OLTEN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Subject-matter of the dispute before the Board of Appeal — Articles 61 and 62 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Articles 63 and 64 of Regulation No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2010301EN.01002701.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/27





Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Inditex v OHIM — Marín Díaz de Cerio (OFTEN)
(Case T-292/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark OFTEN - Earlier national word mark OLTEN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Subject-matter of the dispute before the Board of Appeal - Articles 61 and 62 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Articles 63 and 64 of Regulation No 207/2009))
2010/C 301/44
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil (Inditex), SA (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Roberto Fernando Marín Díaz de Cerio (Logroño, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2008 (Case R 484/2007-2) in opposition proceedings between Roberto Fernando Marín Díaz de Cerio and Industria de Diseño Textil (Inditex), SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Industria de Diseño Textil (Inditex), SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 236, 13.9.2008.
Case C-441/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 13 September 2010 — Ioan Anghel v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, interpretation of the law, motor vehicle, pollution, tax system








C_2010328EN.01001402.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/14





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 13 September 2010 — Ioan Anghel v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău
(Case C-441/10)
()
2010/C 328/26
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bacău

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Ioan Anghel

Respondents: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău

Questions referred







1.


Does the first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU (formerly Article 90 EC), under which no Member State may impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products, preclude the establishment of a pollution tax for motor vehicles which is levied upon the first registration in the territory of a Member State, which has the characteristics specified by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008 and which may constitute an internal tax on goods coming from other Member States, account being taken of the fact that the tax is not levied upon the re-registering in Romania of a motor vehicle which has the same characteristics as an imported second-hand motor vehicle?










2.


Does the second paragraph of Article 110 TFEU (formerly Article 90 EC), under which no Member State may impose on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products, preclude the establishment of a pollution tax for motor vehicles which is levied upon the first registration in the territory of a Member State and which has the characteristics specified by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008, account being taken of the fact that exemption from payment of the pollution tax was granted under Government Emergency Order No 218/2008 for the category of motor vehicle which possesses the technical characteristics of the motor vehicles manufactured in Romania?
Case T-400/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Enercon v OHIM — BP (ENERCON) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ENERCON — Earlier Community word mark ENERGOL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Partial refusal to register)
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Germany, action for annulment, intellectual property, trade-mark law








C_2010301EN.01002702.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/27





Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Enercon v OHIM — BP (ENERCON)
(Case T-400/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ENERCON - Earlier Community word mark ENERGOL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Partial refusal to register)
2010/C 301/45
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: BP plc (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 July 2008 (Case R 957/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between BP plc and Enercon GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.
Case T-366/07: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Prestige Cosmetics (P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE — Earlier national figurative marks Prestige — Partial refusal to register — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, cosmetics industry, trade-mark law








C_2010301EN.01002501.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/25





Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Prestige Cosmetics (P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE)
(Case T-366/07) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE - Earlier national figurative marks Prestige - Partial refusal to register - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2010/C 301/39
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, Ohio, United States) (represented by: K. Sandberg and B. Klingberg, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Prestige Cosmetics SpA (Anzola Emilia, Italy) (represented by: A. Mugnoz, M. Andreolini and A. Parini, lawyers)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2007 (Case R 681/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Prestige Cosmetics Srl and The Procter & Gamble Company

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 July 2007 (Case R 681/2006-2);










2.


Orders OHIM to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by The Procter & Gamble Company in the proceedings before the Court;










3.


Orders Prestige Cosmetics SpA to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by The Procter & Gamble Company in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;










4.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder.






(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.