do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-13/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Storck v OHIM (Shape of a chocolate mouse) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a chocolate mouse — 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) — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2010-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), confectionery product, trade-mark law








C_2011046EN.01001101.xml










12.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/11





Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Storck v OHIM (Shape of a chocolate mouse)
(Case T-13/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a chocolate mouse - 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) - Rights of the defence)
2011/C 46/19
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially G. Schneider, then G. Schneider and R. Manea, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2008 (Case R 185/2006-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate mouse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2010-12-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Portugal, catch of fish, fishing controls, fishing regulations, sea fish








C_2010343EN.01001601.xml










17.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/16





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
2010/C 343/10
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


7.5.2010




Duration


7.5.2010-31.12.2010




Member State


Portugal




Stock or Group of stocks


DWS/10-




Species


Deep-sea sharks




Zone


Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of X




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


—




Web link to the decision of the Member State:
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm


(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1222/2010 of 17 December 2010 on the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2010 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for certain products in the egg sector and for egg albumin
Date: 2010-12-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: egg, egg product, import licence, tariff quota








L_2010335EN.01005401.xml










18.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 335/54








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1222/2010
of 17 December 2010
         
on the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2010 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for certain products in the egg sector and for egg albumin


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),


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 of 15 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the egg sector and for egg albumin (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of egg products and egg albumin.












(2)


The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2010 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2011 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2011 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 18 December 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 17 December 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 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

(3)  
            OJ L 128, 16.5.2007, p. 19.




ANNEX







Group No


Order No


Allocation coefficient for import licence applications lodged for the subperiod from 1.1.2011-31.3.2011
(%)




E2


09.4401


29,413481
Case T-585/10: Action brought on 17 December 2010 — Aitic Penteo v OHIM — Atos Worldline (PENTEO)
Date: 2010-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, banking, trade-mark law








C_2011063EN.01003001.xml










26.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/30





Action brought on 17 December 2010 — Aitic Penteo v OHIM — Atos Worldline (PENTEO)
(Case T-585/10)
2011/C 63/57
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Aitic Penteo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Atos Worldline SA (Bruxelles, Belgium)

Form of order sought







—


Modify the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2010 in case R 774/2010-1 and grant the Community trade mark application No 5480561










—


In the alternative, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2010 in case R 774/2010-1; and










—


Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PENTEO’, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 5480561

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 in opposition: Benelux trade mark registration No 772120 of the word mark ‘XENTEO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 37, 38 and 42; International trade mark registration No 863851 of the word mark ‘XENTEO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 37, 38 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes: (i) Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which prohibits any discrimination, requiring an equal treatment accordingly with the law, (ii) Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal disregarded the prior rights of the applicant, (iii) Articles 75 and 76 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal disregarded facts and evidences submitted in due time by the applicant, and (iv) Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in assessment of likelihood of confusion.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2010-12-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, catch of fish, fishing controls, fishing regulations, sea fish








C_2010343EN.01002101.xml










17.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/21





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
2010/C 343/15
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


17.3.2010




Duration


17.3.2010-31.12.2010




Member State


France




Stock or Group of stocks


DWS/56789-




Species


Deep-sea sharks




Zone


Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of V, VI, VII, VIII and IX




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


4134




Web link to the decision of the Member State:
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm


(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case T-460/08: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Commission v Acentro Turismo (Arbitration clause — Contract for the provision of services concerning the organisation of journeys for official trips — Non-performance of the contract — Admissibility — Payment of principal sums due — Late payment interest)
Date: 2010-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EC action to establish liability, European Community, Italy, fine, travel agency








C_2011038EN.01001102.xml










5.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/11





Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Commission v Acentro Turismo
(Case T-460/08) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Contract for the provision of services concerning the organisation of journeys for official trips - Non-performance of the contract - Admissibility - Payment of principal sums due - Late payment interest)
2011/C 38/17
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Aresu and A. Caeiros, Agents)

Defendant: Acentro Turismo (represented by: A. Carta and G. Murdolo, lawyers)

Re:

Application by the Commission under Article 153 EA for an order requiring the defendant to pay sums allegedly payable, plus late payment interest, by way of performance of the contract for provision of services 349-90-04 TL ISP I, concerning the organisation of journeys for official trips required by the Joint Research Centre

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Orders Acentro Turismo SpA to pay the European Commission the principal sum of EUR 13 497,46, the sum of EUR 2 278,55 in late payment interest due at the date on which the application in the action was lodged and late payment interest on those amounts calculated in accordance with the rates in effect from 10 October 2008 until the date of full payment of the principal sum owing.










2.


Orders Acentro Turismo to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.
Case T-395/08: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Shape of a chocolate rabbit) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a chocolate rabbit — 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) — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), confectionery product, trade-mark law








C_2011046EN.01001003.xml










12.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/10





Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Shape of a chocolate rabbit)
(Case T-395/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a chocolate rabbit - 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) - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2011/C 46/18
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Lange, E. Schalast and G. Hild, lawyers)

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 18 July 2008 (Case R 419/2008-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate rabbit.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.
Case C-217/09: Order of the Court of 17 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte, Italy) — Maurizio Polisseni v Azienda Sanitaria Locale N.14 V.C.O., Antonio Giuliano (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Public health — Pharmacies — Proximity — Supply of the population with medicines — Authorisation to operate — Territorial distribution of pharmacies — Establishment of limits based on a criterion of demographic density — Minimum distance between pharmacies)
Date: 2010-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition law, health care, interpretation of the law, pedestrian, pharmacy, provision of services, restriction on competition








C_2011120EN.01000201.xml










16.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/2





Order of the Court of 17 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte, Italy) — Maurizio Polisseni v Azienda Sanitaria Locale N.14 V.C.O., Antonio Giuliano
(Case C-217/09) (1)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Public health - Pharmacies - Proximity - Supply of the population with medicines - Authorisation to operate - Territorial distribution of pharmacies - Establishment of limits based on a criterion of demographic density - Minimum distance between pharmacies)
2011/C 120/02
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Maurizio Polisseni.

Defendants: Azienda Sanitaria Locale N.14 V.C.O., Antonio Giuliano

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Interpretation of Arts 43, 152 and 153 EC — Opening of new pharmacies — National legislation making authorisation for the moving of a pharmacy subject to the keeping of a minimum distance between one pharmacy and another

Operative part of the order







1.


Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted in principle as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which places limits on the sitting of pharmacies by providing that:






—


in each pharmaceutical area, only one pharmacy may be created, in principle, per 4 000 or 5 000 inhabitants; and










—


each pharmacy must keep a minimum distance from existing pharmacies, that distance being, as a general rule, 200 metres.














2.


However, Article 49 TFEU precludes such national legislation in so far as the basic rules of 4 000 or 5 000 inhabitants and 200 metres prevent the creation, in any geographical area with particular demographic characteristics, of a sufficient number of pharmacies capable of providing an appropriate pharmaceutical service, which it is for the national court to verify.






(1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.
Case C-594/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 17 December 2010 — T.G. van Laarhoven v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2010-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, delivery, distributive trades, interpretation of the law, provision of services, tax exemption








C_2011080EN.01001003.xml










12.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 17 December 2010 — T.G. van Laarhoven v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-594/10)
2011/C 80/20
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: T.G. van Laarhoven

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1.


Does the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive (1) preclude amendments to deduction-limiting legislation such as that in question, according to which a Member State has sought to take advantage of the possibility, for which that provision provides, of (retaining) the exclusion of deduction in respect of certain goods and services if, as a consequence of those amendments, the amount excluded from deduction has been increased in most cases, but the approach and scheme of the deduction-limiting legislation have remained unchanged?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should the national courts refrain from applying the deduction-limiting legislation as a whole, or is it sufficient for them to refrain from applying the legislation to the extent that it has increased the scale of the exclusion or restriction existing at the time when the Sixth Directive entered into force?






(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)
Judgment of the Court of 17 December 2010 in Case E-5/10 — Dr Joachim Kottke v Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetyle Stiftung (Security for costs before national courts — Discrimination — Article 4 EEA — Justification)
Date: 2010-12-17
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EFTA Court, EFTA countries, Liechtenstein, discrimination on the basis of nationality, guarantee








C_2011148EN.01000601.xml










19.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/6





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 17 December 2010
in Case E-5/10
Dr Joachim Kottke v Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetyle Stiftung
(Security for costs before national courts — Discrimination — Article 4 EEA — Justification)
(2011/C 148/06)
In Case E-5/10 between Dr Joachim Kottke and Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetyle Stiftung — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Fürstliches Obergericht (Princely Court of Appeal), Liechtenstein, concerning the interpretation of Article 4 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur) and Henrik Bull, Judges, gave judgment on 17 December 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


A provision of national law pursuant to which non-resident plaintiffs in civil litigation must provide security for costs of court proceedings, while resident plaintiffs are not obliged to provide such security, entails indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 4 EEA.










2.


In order for such a discrimination to be justified on the basis of public interest objectives, the provision of national law must be necessary and not excessive in attaining them.










3.


The latter condition is not met in cases where the State in which the plaintiff is resident allows for the enforcement of a costs award, whether on the basis of treaty obligations or unilaterally.










4.


In other cases, too, provision of security may not be required in a manner disproportionately affecting the interests of a non-resident plaintiff in being able to commence legal proceedings. This means in particular that security may not be required for an amount which is out of proportion to the costs likely to be incurred by the defendant or unreasonably high or which must be posted within a very short period of time. The form of security required, the situation giving rise to its imposition and whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to legal aid also constitute important factors.










5.


It is for the national court to determine in a particular case whether the conditions for justification are satisfied.
Case C-262/88 INT: Application for interpretation of judgment of 17 May 1990 , Barber (C-262/88), lodged on 26 May 2010 by Manuel Enrique Peinado Guitart
Date: 2010-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, pay, pension scheme, type of business








C_2011063EN.01001803.xml










26.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/18





Application for interpretation of judgment of 17 May 1990, Barber (C-262/88), lodged on 26 May 2010 by Manuel Enrique Peinado Guitart
(Case C-262/88 INT)
2011/C 63/35
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Manuel Enrique Peinado Guitart
By order of 17 December 2010, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) declared the application for interpretation inadmissible.