do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-592/10: Action brought on 27 December 2010 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Technisynthese (BTS)
Date: 2010-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, trade-mark law








C_2011080EN.01001902.xml










12.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/19





Action brought on 27 December 2010 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Technisynthese (BTS)
(Case T-592/10)
2011/C 80/37
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. E. López Camba and J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Technisynthese SARL (Saint Pierre Montlimart, France)

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 23 September 2010 in Case R 1380/2009-1 in its entirety;










—


order the defendant and any interveners to pay all the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: El Corte Inglés, SA.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BTS’ for goods in Classes 14, 18, 25 and 28.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Technisynthese SARL.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community figurative marks containing the word element ‘TBS’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and opposition upheld.

Pleas in law: Failure to demonstrate that the earlier marks have a reputation and have been put to use, and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since 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 T-583/10: Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM — TeliaSonera Denmark (Shade of magenta)
Date: 2010-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, trade-mark law








C_2011055EN.01003101.xml










19.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/31





Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM — TeliaSonera Denmark (Shade of magenta)
(Case T-583/10)
2011/C 55/56
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: T. Dolde, V. von Bomhard and B. Goebel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TeliaSonera Denmark A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark)

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 22 October 2010 in case R 463/2009-4;










—


Order the defendant or the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it become an intervening party in this case, to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The colour mark consisting in a shade of magenta for services in classes 38 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 212787

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute grounds for refusal pursuant to Articles 4 and 7(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Closed the case following the withdrawal of the request for declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal as inadmissible

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 59 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) failed to properly assess the admissibility of the appeal, and (ii) violated Articles 85(3) and 83 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, by denying the legitimate interest to continue the proceedings.
Case T-598/10: Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Biodes v OHIM — Manasul International (LINEASUL)
Date: 2010-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, trade-mark law








C_2011080EN.01002102.xml










12.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/21





Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Biodes v OHIM — Manasul International (LINEASUL)
(Case T-598/10)
2011/C 80/41
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Biodes, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, 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: Manasul International, SL (Ponferrada, Spain)

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 23 September 2010 in Case R 1520/2009-1;










—


order the defendant and any interveners to pay all the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Biodes, SL.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘LINEASUL’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 31.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Manasul International, SL.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative marks containing the word elements ‘MANASUL’ and ‘MANASUL ORO’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 31.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and mark applied for refused.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no similarity between the marks at issue and the Board of Appeal failed to examine the proof of use of the earlier marks.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case T-597/10: Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Biodes v OHIM — Manasul International (BIESUL)
Date: 2010-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, trade-mark law








C_2011080EN.01002101.xml










12.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/21





Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Biodes v OHIM — Manasul International (BIESUL)
(Case T-597/10)
2011/C 80/40
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Biodes, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Manasul International, SL (Ponferrada, Spain)

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 23 September 2010 in Case R 1519/2009-1;










—


order the defendant and any interveners to pay all the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Biodes, SL.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BIESUL’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 31.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Manasul International, SL.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative marks containing the word elements ‘MANASUL’ and ‘MANASUL ORO’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 31.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and mark applied for refused.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no similarity between the marks at issue and the Board of Appeal failed to examine the proof of use of the earlier marks.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case T-584/10: Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Yilmaz v OHIM — Tequila Cuervo (TEQUILA MATADOR HECHO EN MEXICO)
Date: 2010-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, trade-mark law








C_2011055EN.01003201.xml










19.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/32





Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Yilmaz v OHIM — Tequila Cuervo (TEQUILA MATADOR HECHO EN MEXICO)
(Case T-584/10)
2011/C 55/57
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Mustafa Yilmaz (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: F. Kuschmirek, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tequila Cuervo, SA de CV (Tlaquepaque, Mexico)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 October 2010 in case R 1162/2009-2; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


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

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘TEQUILA MATADOR HECHO EN MEXICO’, for goods in class es 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 3975117

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark registration No 30205053.1 of the word mark ‘MATADOR’ for goods in class 32; International trade mark registration No 792051 of the word mark ‘MATADOR’ for goods in class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was no likelihood of confusion, as the trade marks in question are confusingly similar with regard to the goods for which the applied for trade mark seeks protection.
Case C-620/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten I Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 27 December 2010 — Migrationsverket v Nurije Kastrati, Valdrina Kastrati, Valdrin Kastrati
Date: 2010-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Sweden, interpretation of the law, right of asylum








C_2011072EN.01001502.xml










5.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten I Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 27 December 2010 — Migrationsverket v Nurije Kastrati, Valdrina Kastrati, Valdrin Kastrati
(Case C-620/10)
2011/C 72/26
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten I Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Migrationsverket

Defendants: Nurije Kastrati, Valdrina Kastrati, Valdrin Kastrati

Questions referred







1.


In the light inter alia of the stipulations of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 343/2003 (1) and/or the absence of provisions in the regulation on the cessation of a Member State’s responsibility to examine an asylum application other than those contained in the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) and Article 16(3) and (4), is Regulation No 343/2003 to be interpreted as meaning that the withdrawal of an asylum application does not affect the possibility of applying the regulation?










2.


Is the stage in the process at which the asylum application is withdrawn relevant in answering the question set out above?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national, OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1