do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5948 — Banco Santander/Rainbow)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-11-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, service industry








C_2010320EN.01000102.xml










25.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5948 — Banco Santander/Rainbow)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 320/02
On 15 October 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5948. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-213/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Barsoum Chabo v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen (Customs union — Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 — Common Customs Tariff — Recovery of import customs duties — Imports of processed foodstuffs — Preserved mushrooms — CN subheading 2003 10 30 — Levy of an additional amount — Principle of proportionality)
Date: 2010-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, import, interest rate subsidy, interpretation of the law, mushroom-growing, preserved product, principle of proportionality








C_2011030EN.01000501.xml










29.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/5





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Barsoum Chabo v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen
(Case C-213/09) (1)

(Customs union - Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 - Common Customs Tariff - Recovery of import customs duties - Imports of processed foodstuffs - Preserved mushrooms - CN subheading 2003 10 30 - Levy of an additional amount - Principle of proportionality)
2011/C 30/07
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Barsoum Chabo

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2005 L 286, p. 1) as regards the additional amount charged on the import of products falling under subheading 2003 1030 000 — Preserved mushrooms — Principle of proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the question referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of the amount of the specific customs duty of EUR 222 per 100 kilograms of net drained weight, which applies under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff and is charged on imports of preserved mushrooms of the genus Agaricus coming under subheading 2003 10 30 of the Combined Nomenclature in that annex and effected outside the quota opened by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1864/2004 of 26 October 2004 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for preserved mushrooms imported from third countries, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1995/2005 of 7 December 2005.


(1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.
Case C-47/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 November 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Approximation of laws — Cocoa and chocolate products — Labelling — Addition of the word pure or the phrase pure chocolate to the labelling of certain products)
Date: 2010-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, confectionery product, consumer protection, labelling, marketing, product designation








C_2011030EN.01000201.xml










29.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/2





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 November 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-47/09) (1)

(Approximation of laws - Cocoa and chocolate products - Labelling - Addition of the word ‘pure’ or the phrase ‘pure chocolate’ to the labelling of certain products)
2011/C 30/02
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and D. Nardi, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 3 of Directive 2000/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2000 relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption (OJ 2000 L 197, p. 9) and Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29) — Labelling of chocolate products — Inclusion of the word ‘puro’ or the phrase ‘cioccolato puro’ in the labelling of chocolate products containing only cocoa butter by way of vegetable fat.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by providing that the adjective ‘pure’ may be added to the sales name of chocolate products which do not contain vegetable fats other than cocoa butter, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(5) of Directive 2000/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2000 relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption and under Article 3(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs;










2.


Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6026 — CRH/BauKing) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-11-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, service industry








C_2010320EN.01002501.xml










25.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/25





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6026 — CRH/BauKing)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 320/14






1.


On 16 November 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which CRH Deutschland GmbH (‘CRH’, Germany), belonging to the group CRH Plc Group (Ireland), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of BauKing AG (‘BauKing’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for CRH: production and distribution of building materials and products for the construction industry,










—


for BauKing: Do-it-yourself outlets and builders’ merchants.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6026 — CRH/BauKing, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5890 — Heinzel/Europapier)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-11-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, service industry








C_2010320EN.01000101.xml










25.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5890 — Heinzel/Europapier)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 320/01
On 7 October 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5890. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-216/10 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 November 2010 — Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Applus Servicios Technológicos SL (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 73, 74 and 79 — Figurative mark A+ — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark AirPlus International — Opposition rejected)
Date: 2010-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), air transport, trade-mark law








C_2011089EN.01000401.xml










19.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/4





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 November 2010 — Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Applus Servicios Technológicos SL
(Case C-216/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 73, 74 and 79 - Figurative mark A+ - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark AirPlus International - Opposition rejected)
2011/C 89/06
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH (represented by: R. Kunze, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent), Applus Servicios Technológicos SL

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2010 in Case T-321/07 Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Applus Servicios Tecnológicos by which that court dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘AirPlus International’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36 and 42 against Decision R 310/2006-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 June 2007 dismissing the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by the appellant against the application for registration of the figurative mark ‘A+’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41 and 42

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
Case T-169/09: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2010 — Vidieffe v OHIM — Ellis International Group (GOTHA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark GOTHA — Earlier Community figurative mark gotcha — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), leather industry, trade-mark law








C_2011030EN.01003701.xml










29.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/37





Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2010 — Vidieffe v OHIM — Ellis International Group (GOTHA)
(Case T-169/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GOTHA - Earlier Community figurative mark gotcha - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2011/C 30/65
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Vidieffe Srl (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: M. Lamandini, D. De Pasquale and M. Pappalardo, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings, Ltd (Nassau, Bahamas)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 February 2009 (Case R 657/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Perry Ellis International Group Holdings, Ltd and Vidieffe Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 February 2009 (Case R 657/2008-1), in so far as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division, inasmuch as that decision rejected the opposition, first, in respect of ‘[leather and imitations of leather] goods (not included in other classes); trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks’ in Class 18 and, second, in respect of all the goods in Class 25.










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder.










3.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Vidieffe Srl.






(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.