do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-25/11: Action brought on 17 January 2011 — Germans Boada v OHIM (Shape of a ceramics cutter)
Date: 2011-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, trade-mark law








C_2011080EN.01002302.xml










12.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/23





Action brought on 17 January 2011 — Germans Boada v OHIM (Shape of a ceramics cutter)
(Case T-25/11)
2011/C 80/45
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Germans Boada (Rubí, Spain) (represented by J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 October 2010, in Case R 771/2010-1, in accordance with Article 65(3) CTMR and on grounds of infringement of the principle of equal treatment and infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (3) CTMR, and register three-dimensional trade mark 7.317.911;










—


in the alternative and solely in the event that the first claim does not succeed, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2010, in Case R 771/2010-1, on the ground of infringement of Articles 75 and 76 CTMR;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 87(2) CTMR.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a ceramics cutter, for goods in Class 8

Decision of the Examiner: Application refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since the mark applied for has distinctive character, and of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, on the ground that it has been shown that the mark concerned has acquired distinctiveness through use. Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, since OHIM should have taken into account only the facts and evidence submitted by the parties in due time. Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, on the ground that OHIM failed to take into account facts and evidence submitted by the applicant in due form and in due time.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case C-22/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy
Date: 2011-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, air traffic, air transport, interpretation of the law








C_2011080EN.01001503.xml










12.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy
(Case C-22/11)
2011/C 80/30
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finnair Oyj

Defendant: Timy Lassooy

Questions referred







1.


Is Regulation No 261/2004 (1) and in particular Article 4 thereof to be interpreted as meaning that its application is limited only to cases of denied boarding which are caused by overbooking by the air carrier for economic reasons, or is the regulation applicable also to situations in which boarding is denied for other reasons, such as operational reasons?










2.


Is Article 2(j) of the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the reasonable grounds laid down therein are limited only to factors relating to passengers, or may denied boarding be reasonable on other grounds? If the regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that denied boarding may be reasonable on grounds other than those relating to passengers, is it to be interpreted as meaning that denied boarding may also be reasonable on the grounds of the rescheduling of flights as a result of the extraordinary circumstances mentioned in recitals 14 and 15?










3.


Is the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier may be exempted from liability under Article 5(3) in extraordinary circumstances not only with respect to a flight which it cancelled, but also with respect to passengers on later flights, on the ground that by its actions it attempted to spread the negative effects of the extraordinary circumstances it encountered in its operations, such as a strike, among a wider class of passengers than the cancelled flight’s passengers by rescheduling its later flights so that no passenger’s journey was unreasonably delayed? In other words, may an air carrier rely on extraordinary circumstances also with respect to a passenger on a later flight whose journey was not directly affected by that factor? Does it make a significant difference whether the passenger’s situation and right to compensation are assessed in accordance with Article 4 on denied boarding or with Article 5 on flight cancellation?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-23/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Fleischkontor Moksel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Date: 2011-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU customs procedure, import, interpretation of the law, third country








C_2011113EN.01000401.xml










9.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/4





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Fleischkontor Moksel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
(Case C-23/11)
2011/C 113/06
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fleischkontor Moksel GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Questions referred







1.


Is the holder of an export licence entitled to an export refund only if he is registered as exporter in box 2 of the export declaration lodged with the competent customs office (Article 5(1) of Regulation No 800/1999)? (1)











2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
Is the Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) which is responsible for paying the refund bound by the subsequent amendment made by the customs office of export to the information entered in box 2 of the export declaration?










3.


If Question 2 is answered in the negative:
Is the office responsible for paying the refund entitled, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, to take the words in box 2 of the export declaration literally and to refuse an application for an export refund on the ground that the applicant for the refund is not the exporter of the goods covered by that application, or is the responsible office obliged, when there is a contradiction between the description of the exporter in box 2 of the export declaration and the previous document to which reference is made in box 40 and/or the holder of the export licence registered in box 44, to consult the applicant for a refund and, if necessary, to amend of its own motion the words in box 2 of the export declaration?






(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11.
Case T-23/11: Action brought on 17 January 2011 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — BA&SH (ba&sh)
Date: 2011-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, trade-mark law








C_2011080EN.01002202.xml










12.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/22





Action brought on 17 January 2011 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — BA&SH (ba&sh)
(Case T-23/11)
2011/C 80/43
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


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

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BA&SH SAS (Paris, France)

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 7 October 2010 in case R 94/2010-2;










—


Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear 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 ‘ba&sh’, for goods in classes 3, 14, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 5679758

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 2211312 of the figurative mark in colour ‘BASS10’, for goods in class 3; Spanish trade mark registration No 2140717 of the figurative mark in colour ‘BASS10’, for goods in class 18; Spanish trade mark registration No 2140718 of the figurative mark in colour ‘BASS10’, for goods in class 25; Spanish trade mark registration No 2223832 of the figurative mark in colour ‘BASS10’, for goods in class 14

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Articles 42(2) and 42(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that no genuine use for the goods concerned was proved. The applicant also considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the concerned trade marks are confusingly similar and as the products designated by the contested trade mark are partially identical and partially similar to those covered by the earlier registrations.
Case C-26/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Belgische Petroleum Unie VZW and Others v Belgische Staat
Date: 2011-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European standard, biofuel, diesel fuel, interpretation of the law, technical standard








C_2011113EN.01000402.xml










9.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/4





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Belgische Petroleum Unie VZW and Others v Belgische Staat
(Case C-26/11)
2011/C 113/07
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings








Applicants


:


Belgische Petroleum Unie VZW and Others




Defendant


:


Belgische Staat




Interveners


:








 


Belgian Bioethanol Association VZW










 


Belgian Biodiesel Board VZW









Questions referred







1.


Should Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Directive 98/70/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998‘relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC’ as well as, where appropriate, Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 26(2), 28 and 34 to 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a statutory provision on the basis of which every registered petroleum company which releases petrol products and/or diesel products for consumption is also obliged in the same calendar year to make available for consumption a quantity of sustainable biofuels, namely bio ethanol, pure or in the form of bio ETBE, amounting to at least 4 % vol/vol of the quantity of petrol products released for consumption, and FAME amounting to at least 4 % vol/vol of the quantity of diesel products released for consumption?










2.


If the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is answered in the negative, should Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council (of 22 June 1998) ‘laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services’, notwithstanding Article 10(1), first indent, of the same Directive, be interpreted as imposing an obligation that the Commission be notified of a draft standard on the basis of which every registered petroleum company which releases petrol products and/or diesel products for consumption is also obliged in the same calendar year to make available for consumption a quantity of sustainable biofuels, namely bio-ethanol, pure or in the form of bio-ETBE, amounting to at least 4 % vol/vol of the quantity of petrol products released for consumption, and FAME amounting to at least 4 % vol/vol of the quantity of diesel products released for consumption?






(1)  OJ 1998 L 350, p. 58


(2)  OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37
Case C-30/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Suceava (Romania) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Adrian Ilaș v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Suceava — Administrația Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
Date: 2011-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, interpretation of the law, motor vehicle, pollution, tax system








C_2011113EN.01000502.xml










9.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Suceava (Romania) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Adrian Ilaș v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Suceava — Administrația Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
(Case C-30/11)
2011/C 113/09
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Suceava

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Adrian Ilaș

Defendants: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Suceava — Administrația Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Questions referred







1.


Does the first paragraph of Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 90 of the Treaty establishing the European Community), 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 a Member State from introducing a tax with the characteristics of the pollution tax governed by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008, as subsequently amended and supplemented, which is levied upon the first registration in Romania of second-hand imported motor vehicles which have previously been registered in other Member States, account being taken of the fact that that tax is not applied to second-hand motor vehicles registered in Romania where they are the object of certain transactions and are re-registered?










2.


Does the second paragraph of Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 90 of the Treaty establishing the European Community), which is intended to eliminate factors liable to protect the national market and to breach the principles of competition, preclude the establishment of a pollution tax for motor vehicles which is levied upon the first registration in Romania of second-hand imported motor vehicles which have previously been registered in other Member States, account being taken of the fact that exemption from payment of the pollution tax was granted under Government Emergency Order No 218/2008 for motor vehicles in category M1 and pollution class Euro 4, with a cylinder capacity of not more than 2 000 cc, and all motor vehicles in category N1 and pollution class Euro 4, which were registered for the first time in Romania or in another Member State of the European Union between 15 December 2008 and 31 December 2009 inclusive, that is to say, for the category of motor vehicle which possesses the technical characteristics of the motor vehicles manufactured in Romania, thus favouring the domestic motor vehicle manufacturing industry?
Case C-25/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA v Fazenda Pública
Date: 2011-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, VAT, interpretation of the law, tax system








C_2011103EN.01001402.xml










2.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/14





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA v Fazenda Pública
(Case C-25/11)
2011/C 103/25
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 23 of the CIVA compatible with Article 17(2) and (5) and Article 19 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977?










2.


If so, is the establishment of a specific deductible proportion of the value added tax paid by taxable persons carrying out taxable transactions only, albeit by actual use, based on non-taxable subsidies to that sector (‘inputs’), under Article 23, compatible with Article 17(2) and (5) and Article 19 of that Directive?






(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).