do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-277/11: Action brought on 30 May 2011 — Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge v OHIM — Promotora Imperial (iHotel)
Date: 2011-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011238EN.01001902.xml










13.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/19





Action brought on 30 May 2011 — Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge v OHIM — Promotora Imperial (iHotel)
(Case T-277/11)
2011/C 238/35
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Koch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Promotora Imperial, SA

Form of order sought







—


Vary the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 24 February 2011 in Case R 832/2010-1 so as to uphold the main appeal and annul opposition No B 1458571; order the opponent to pay the costs of the opposition and appeal proceedings; uphold the decision as to the remainder;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs of this action.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘iHotel’ for services in Classes 35, 39, 41, 42 and 43 — application No 6912877.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Promotora Imperial, SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘i-hotel’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 41 and 43.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue. The applicant claims that the Board of Appeal was incorrect in holding there to be similarity both between the goods and services concerned and between the trade marks at issue.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 530/2011 of 30 May 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2011-05-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, agricultural product, import price








L_2011143EN.01001401.xml










31.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 143/14








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 530/2011
of 30 May 2011
         
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables


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 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 31 May 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 May 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.




ANNEX
Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables







(EUR/100 kg)




CN code


Third country code (1)



Standard import value




0702 00 00 


AL 


64,0 




MA 


133,3 




TR 


67,3 




ZZ 


88,2 




0707 00 05 


AL 


31,8 




MK 


28,2 




TR 


111,1 




ZZ 


57,0 




0709 90 70 


MA 


86,8 




TR 


122,2 




ZZ 


104,5 




0709 90 80 


EC 


23,2 




ZZ 


23,2 




0805 10 20 


EG 


57,8 




IL 


54,0 




MA 


49,7 




TR 


74,4 




ZZ 


59,0 




0805 50 10 


AR 


72,2 




TR 


68,8 




ZA 


127,2 




ZZ 


89,4 




0808 10 80 


AR 


98,2 




BR 


79,0 




CA 


129,0 




CL 


79,0 




CN 


95,4 




CR 


69,1 




NZ 


112,2 




US 


102,6 




UY 


96,7 




ZA 


87,0 




ZZ 


94,8 




0809 20 95 


US 


384,8 




ZZ 


384,8 






(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
            ZZ
            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.
Case C-267/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 May 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Third Chamber) on 22 March 2011 in Case T-369/07 Republic of Latvia v European Commission
Date: 2011-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, Latvia, amendment, appeal, national planning








C_2011226EN.01001701.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/17





Appeal brought on 30 May 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Third Chamber) on 22 March 2011 in Case T-369/07 Republic of Latvia v European Commission
(Case C-267/11 P)
2011/C 226/32
Language of the case: Latvian

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: E. White and I. Rubene)

Other parties to the proceedings: Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Form of order sought







—


Set aside the judgment under appeal.










—


Order the Republic of Latvia to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The single ground of appeal is based on a failure to respect the three-month time-limit laid down in Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC. (1)

The Commission considers that, in its analysis, the General Court treated the first and second sentences of Article 9(3) as one and, consequently, that its interpretation is not in line with the objectives laid down in that paragraph.
That interpretation of Article 9(3) of the directive is contrary to the interpretation which the General Court adopted in another case, in which it rightly considered that the second sentence of Article 9(3) constituted a separate legal basis.
In its interpretation of Article 9(3) of the directive, the Commission relies on the literal wording of the provision, which is fully in line with the objective pursued by that provision. Consequently, if the Commission rejects the national allocation plan notified by a Member State, the latter will be required to amend that plan taking account of the Commission's objections and will not be able to execute the plan until the Commission has approved the amendments, for which there is no time-limit.
The Commission notes that the contested decision was a decision on the amendments to the national allocation plan and not on the notified national allocation plan itself.
However, given that the General Court did not consider that the second sentence of Article 9(3) of the directive established a different procedure, it found itself required to consider the notified amendments as notification of a new national allocation plan and, as a result, required to apply the three-month time-limit incorrectly.


(1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.