do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-33/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Peeters Landbouwmachines v OHIM — Fors MW (BIGAB)
Date: 2011-01-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, trade-mark law








C_2011080EN.01002401.xml










12.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/24





Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Peeters Landbouwmachines v OHIM — Fors MW (BIGAB)
(Case T-33/11)
2011/C 80/47
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Peeters Landbouwmachines BV (Etten-Leur, Netherlands) (represented by: P.N.A.M. Claassen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AS Fors MW (Saue, Republic of Estonia)

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 4 November 2010 in case R 210/2010-1;










—


Order the defendant to declare invalid the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for invalidity, or order the defendant to declare invalid the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for invalidity as far as it concerns the registration for Class 7; and










—


Order the defendant 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 word mark ‘BIGAB’ for goods in classes 6, 7 and 12 — Community trade mark registration No 4363842

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute and relative grounds for invalidity pursuant to Articles 52(1)(b) and 53(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant contends that the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of bad faith and failed to recognise the importance of similarity between the goods covered by the compared trade marks.
Case T-35/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Kyocera Mita Europe v Commission
Date: 2011-01-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), common customs tariff, customs duties, tariff nomenclature








C_2011080EN.01002501.xml










12.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/25





Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Kyocera Mita Europe v Commission
(Case T-35/11)
2011/C 80/49
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Kyocera Mita Europe BV (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


declare the action admissible;










—


annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1) and in particular to the extent that it introduces the subdivisions under Harmonized System (‘HS’) subheading 8443 31 and the corresponding duty rates; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on pleas in law that are identical to the ones relied on by the applicant in Case T-34/11, Canon Europa v Commission.


(1)  OJ 2010 L 284, p.1
Case T-370/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 24 January 2011 — Rubinetterie Teorema v Commission (Application for interim measures — Competition — Decision of the Commission to impose a fine — Bank guarantee — Application for suspension of application — Financial harm — Lack of exceptional circumstances — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2011-01-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), enforcement of ruling, fine








C_2011072EN.01001801.xml










5.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/18





Order of the President of the General Court of 24 January 2011 — Rubinetterie Teorema v Commission
(Case T-370/10 R)
(Application for interim measures - Competition - Decision of the Commission to impose a fine - Bank guarantee - Application for suspension of application - Financial harm - Lack of exceptional circumstances - Lack of urgency)
2011/C 72/30
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Rubinetterie Teorema SpA (Flero, Italy) (represented by: R. Cavani, M. di Muro and P. Preda, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis, F. Castillo de la Torre and L. Malferrari, agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of application of Commission Decision C(2010) 3 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom fittings and fixtures).

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for suspension of application is rejected.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-36/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Second Chamber (Italy) lodged on 24 January 2011 — Pioneer HI-Bred Italia Srl v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali
Date: 2011-01-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, genetically modified organism, interpretation of the law, restrictive-practice authorisation








C_2011089EN.01001201.xml










19.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Second Chamber (Italy) lodged on 24 January 2011 — Pioneer HI-Bred Italia Srl v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali
(Case C-36/11)
2011/C 89/22
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato — Second Chamber

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pioneer HI-Bred Italia Srl

Defendant: Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali

Question referred

Where a Member State has chosen to make authorisation to cultivate GMOs, even those listed in the European common catalogue, conditional upon compliance with appropriate general measures for ensuring coexistence with conventional and organic farming, must Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, (1) read in the light of Recommendation 2003/556/EC (2) and subsequent Recommendation [2010/C 200/01], (3) be interpreted as meaning that, in the period preceding adoption of the general measures: (a) authorisation must be issued where the application concerns GMOs listed in the European common catalogue; or (b) consideration of the application for authorisation must be suspended until such time as the general measures have been adopted; or (c) authorisation must be issued, but coupled with appropriate requirements for preventing, in the specific case, contact — including unintended contact — between authorised GM crops and surrounding conventional or organic crops?


(1)  OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2003 L 189, p. 36.

(3)  OJ 2010 C 200, p. 1.
2011/54/EU: Council Decision of 24 January 2011 appointing one Latvian member and one Latvian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2011-01-24
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Committee of the Regions, Latvia, alternate, appointment of members








L_2011025EN.01003001.xml










28.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 25/30








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 24 January 2011
         
appointing one Latvian member and one Latvian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions
(2011/54/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the Latvian Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 22 December 2009 and 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).












(2)


A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Ainārs ŠLESERS.












(3)


An alternate member’s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Sergejs DOLGOPOLOVS,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:






(a)


as member:






—


Mr Dainis TURLAIS, Rīgas domes Drošības, kārtības un korupcijas novēršanas jautājumu komitejas priekšsēdētājs,




and










(b)


as alternate member:






—


Mr Viktors GLUHOVS, Rīgas domes deputāts, Pilsētas attīstības komitejas loceklis.










Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 24 January 2011.


For the Council


The President


               FAZEKAS S.





(1)  
            OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22, and OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.
2011/55/EU: Council Decision of 24 January 2011 appointing three Swedish members and four Swedish alternate members of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2011-01-24
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Committee of the Regions, Sweden, alternate, appointment of members








L_2011025EN.01003101.xml










28.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 25/31








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 24 January 2011
         
appointing three Swedish members and four Swedish alternate members of the Committee of the Regions
(2011/55/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Swedish Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).












(2)


Three members’ seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Kent JOHANSSON, Ms Maria WALLHAGER NECKMAN and Ms Kristina ALVENDAL. Four alternate members’ seats have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Ms Susanna HABY, Mr Bernth JOHNSON, Mr Jens NILSSON and Ms Ingela NYLUND WATZ,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:






(a)


as members:






—


Mr Kent JOHANSSON, Skara kommun,










—


Ms Britt-Marie LÖVGREN, Umeå kommun,










—


Ms Jelena DRENJANIN, Huddinge kommun,




and










(b)


as alternate members:






—


Mr Martin ANDREASSON, Västra Götalands läns landsting,










—


Ms Marie SÄLLSTRÖM, Blekinge läns landsting,










—


Ms Marie-Louise RÖNNMARK, Umeå kommun,










—


Ms Carin JÄMTIN, Stockholms kommun.










Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 24 January 2011.


For the Council


The President


               FAZEKAS S.
            





(1)  
            OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22 and OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.
Case T-69/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (Truvo)
Date: 2011-01-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), telecommunications industry, trade-mark law








C_2011089EN.01002602.xml










19.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/26





Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (Truvo)
(Case T-69/11)
2011/C 89/51
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Truvo Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: O.F.A.W. van Haperen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AOL LLC (Dulles, United States)

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 21 October 2010 in case R 956/2009-2; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in colour ‘Truvo’, for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 6288484

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: Community trade mark registration No 4756169 of the figurative mark ‘TRUVEO’ for services in class 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the Community trade mark application for all of class 38

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as well as it lacks proper motivation, as the Board of Appeal erred (i) in its comparison of the services, (ii) in its comparison of the signs, (iii) in its assessment of the relevant public, and (iv) in its assessment of likelihood of confusion.
Case T-63/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Air France v Commission
Date: 2011-01-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), air transport, equal treatment, fine, subsidiary








C_2011095EN.01000901.xml










26.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/9





Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Air France v Commission
(Case T-63/11)
2011/C 95/14
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Société Air France (Roissy Charles de Gaulle, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the entirety of European Commission Decision No C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39.258 — Airfreight) in so far as it concerns Société Air France, as well the grounds underlying the operative part of the Decision;










—


at the very least, annul Article 5(b) and (d) of Decision No C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 which imposes a fine on Société Air France, and the grounds underlying those provisions or reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, that fine to an appropriate amount;










—


in any event, order the European Commission to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward ten pleas which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-62/11 Air France — KLM v Commission.
Case C-13/10: Order of the President of the Court of 24 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) Knubben Dak- en Leidekkersbedrijf BV v Belgische Staat
Date: 2011-01-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, real property, tariff reduction, tax law, tax on income








C_2011120EN.01000802.xml










16.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/8





Order of the President of the Court of 24 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) Knubben Dak- en Leidekkersbedrijf BV v Belgische Staat
(Case C-13/10) (1)

2011/C 120/15
Language of the case: Dutch
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
Case T-50/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Fraas v OHIM (Dark grey, light grey, black, beige, dark red and light red coloured checked pattern)
Date: 2011-01-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), textile product, trade-mark law








C_2011089EN.01002201.xml










19.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/22





Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Fraas v OHIM (Dark grey, light grey, black, beige, dark red and light red coloured checked pattern)
(Case T-50/11)
2011/C 89/44
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts-Wüstenselbitz, Germany) (represented by G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

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 15 November 2010 in Case R 1316/2010-4;










—


Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a dark grey, light grey, black, beige, dark red and light red coloured checked pattern for goods in Classes 18, 24, and 25

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as the Community trade mark at issue has distinctive character, and infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal did not examine the extensive factual and legal submissions of the applicant.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).