do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 568/2011 of 14 June 2011 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Miód drahimski (PGI))
Date: 2011-06-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Poland, animal product, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2011158EN.01002701.xml










16.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 158/27








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 568/2011
of 14 June 2011
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Miód drahimski (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland’s application to register the name ‘Miód drahimski’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 June 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Dacian CIOLOŞ
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ C 248, 15.9.2010, p. 8.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.4.   Other products of animal origin (eggs, honey, various dairy products except butter, etc.)

POLAND
Miód drahimski (PGI)
Case C-306/11 P: Appeal brought on 14 June 2011 by XXXLutz Marken GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2011 in Case T-54/09 XXXLutz Marken GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Natura Selection S.L.
Date: 2011-06-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011238EN.01001201.xml










13.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/12





Appeal brought on 14 June 2011 by XXXLutz Marken GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2011 in Case T-54/09 XXXLutz Marken GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Natura Selection S.L.
(Case C-306/11 P)
2011/C 238/17
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (represented by: H. Pannen, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings:







—


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










—


Natura Selection S.L.





Form of order sought







—


Set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


Refer the case back to the General Court;










—


Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) by concluding that the signs ‘Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil’ and ‘natura selection’ were similar purely on the basis that both signs contained the word element ‘natura’. That word element is not, however, the dominant element of the earlier trade mark.
In its assessment of the similarity of the signs, the General Court started from a legally incorrect understanding of the concepts of ‘distinctive character’ and ‘descriptive character’.
Furthermore, the conclusions of the General Court concerning the similarity of the signs are contradictory and demonstrate in that regard a failure to state reasons.
In the judgment under appeal the General Court also proceeded on the basis of a distortion of the facts. Contrary to the findings of the General Court, the appellant has already demonstrated, in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal, that there is a connection between the goods at issue and the word element ‘natura’.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 2009 78, p. 1).
Case T-68/10: Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2011 — Sphere Time v OHIM — Punch (Watch attached to a lanyard) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a watch attached to a lanyard — Prior design — Disclosure of prior design — Individual character — Misuse of powers — Articles 4, 6, 7 and 61 to 63 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
Date: 2011-06-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011219EN.01001501.xml










23.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/15





Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2011 — Sphere Time v OHIM — Punch (Watch attached to a lanyard)
(Case T-68/10) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a watch attached to a lanyard - Prior design - Disclosure of prior design - Individual character - Misuse of powers - Articles 4, 6, 7 and 61 to 63 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
2011/C 219/19
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sphere Time (Windhof, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. Jäger, N. Gehlsen and M.-C. Simon, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Punch SAS (Nice, France)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2009 (case R 1130/2008-3), concerning invalidity proceedings between Punch SAS and Sphere Time.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sphere Time to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
Case T-312/11: Action brought on 14 June 2011 — Süd-Chemie v OHIM — BYK-Cera (CERATIX)
Date: 2011-06-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), chemical industry, trade-mark law








C_2011238EN.01003201.xml










13.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/32





Action brought on 14 June 2011 — Süd-Chemie v OHIM — BYK-Cera (CERATIX)
(Case T-312/11)
2011/C 238/53
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Süd-Chemie AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: W. Baron von der Osten-Sacken and A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BYK-Cera BV (Deventer, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 1585/2010-4);










—


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





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: BYK-Cera BV

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CERATIX’ for goods in Class 1 — application No 6 358 832

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘CERATOFIX’ for goods in Class 1

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the opposition was rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15 and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the defendant:






—


Erred in reducing the evidential value of the documents submitted by the applicant with the general reasoning that they are connected with the applicant itself;










—


Did not take account of promotional measures as ‘genuine use’;










—


Did not include all the relevant circumstances in assessing whether the use of the trade mark was genuine and;










—


Did not examine the evidence of use provided as a whole.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 567/2011 of 14 June 2011 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Porchetta di Ariccia (PGI))
Date: 2011-06-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, designation of origin, labelling, meat product, product designation








L_2011158EN.01002501.xml










16.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 158/25








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 567/2011
of 14 June 2011
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Porchetta di Ariccia (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Porchetta di Ariccia’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name appearing in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 June 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Dacian CIOLOŞ
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ C 256, 23.9.2010, p. 10.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.2.   Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.)

ITALY
Porchetta di Ariccia (PGI)
Case T-14/11: Order of the General Court of 14 June 2011 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission
Date: 2011-06-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), animal nutrition, cartel








C_2011238EN.01003604.xml










13.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/36





Order of the General Court of 14 June 2011 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission
(Case T-14/11) (1)

2011/C 238/65
Language of the case: French
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.
Case C-360/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bonn (Germany)) — Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt (Competition — Administrative procedure — Documents and information provided under a national leniency programme — Possible negative effects of third-party access to such documents on the effectiveness and proper functioning of cooperation between the authorities forming the European Competition Network)
Date: 2011-06-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, economic concentration, fine, interpretation of the law, merger control, restrictive trade practice








C_2011232EN.01000502.xml










6.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/5






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bonn (Germany)) — Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt
(Case C-360/09) (1)

(Competition - Administrative procedure - Documents and information provided under a national leniency programme - Possible negative effects of third-party access to such documents on the effectiveness and proper functioning of cooperation between the authorities forming the European Competition Network)
(2011/C 232/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Bonn

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pfleiderer AG

Defendant: Bundeskartellamt

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Bonn — Interpretation of provisions of Community law on cartels, in particular Articles 11 and 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1), and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC — Documents and information supplied to the Member States’ competition authorities by applicants for leniency pursuant to a national leniency programme — Possible negative effects of third-party access to such documents on the efficiency and proper functioning of the cooperation between the authorities constituting the European competition network

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of European Union law on cartels, and in particular Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU, must be interpreted as not precluding a person who has been adversely affected by an infringement of European Union competition law and is seeking to obtain damages from being granted access to documents relating to a leniency procedure involving the perpetrator of that infringement. It is, however, for the courts and tribunals of the Member States, on the basis of their national law, to determine the conditions under which such access must be permitted or refused by weighing the interests protected by European Union law.


(1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 564/2011 of 14 June 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2011-06-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, agricultural product, import price








L_2011156EN.01000101.xml










15.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 156/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 564/2011
of 14 June 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 15 June 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 June 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 


MA 


90,3 




MK 


36,4 




TR 


93,0 




ZZ 


73,2 




0707 00 05 


TR 


100,7 




ZZ 


100,7 




0709 90 70 


TR 


110,0 




ZZ 


110,0 




0805 50 10 


AR 


73,4 




CL 


79,9 




TR 


63,4 




ZA 


91,5 




ZZ 


77,1 




0808 10 80 


AR 


82,2 




BR 


79,7 




CL 


92,8 




CN 


90,6 




NZ 


114,2 




US 


178,7 




UY 


57,1 




ZA 


88,5 




ZZ 


98,0 




0809 10 00 


TR 


117,9 




ZZ 


117,9 




0809 20 95 


XS 


221,4 




ZZ 


221,4 






(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’.
Conserving biodiversity in Europe's farmland.
Date: 2011-06-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU programme, conservation of resources, ecology, environmental protection

CONSERVING 
BIODIVERSITY IN EUROPE’S FARMLAND

P
-
N
E
-
4
0
0
-
8
0
-
0
3
-
H
K

Threats:
     Intensification 
     Mechanisation
     Specialisation
     High pesticide/fertilizer use
     Land abandonment 
     Land consolidation

Impact:
     Significant loss of wildlife
     Succession and scrub invasion
     Disappearance of rare breeds
     Pollution and eutrophication
     Human health problems 
     Monotonous landscapes 

Solutions:
     Protection of wildlife rich farmland 
     Maintainance of traditional farming 
     De-intensification of farm production
     Promotion of organic farming
     Reduction in pesticide/fertiliser use
     Farm diversification

																						Intensive arable land	R	Linke/Still	Pictures		

				Wildflower meadow, UK	Chris	Gomersall/naturepl.com

																																								Great bustard Otis tarda in la Serena, Spain	Jose	B	Ruiz/naturepl.com	

Thanks to centuries of diverse farming traditions, 
farmland in Europe is rich in wildlife but this unique 
biodiversity is now under increasing threat from farm 
intensification and land abandonment.
Case C-196/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Chambre de recours des écoles européennes) — Paul Miles and Others v European Schools (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU — Complaints Board of the European Schools — System of remuneration of teachers seconded to the European Schools — No adjustment of remuneration following depreciation in sterling — Compatibility with Articles 18 TFEU and 45 TFEU)
Date: 2011-06-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, European school, cooperation in the field of education, interpretation of the law, purchasing power, teaching








C_2011232EN.01000402.xml










6.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/4






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Chambre de recours des écoles européennes) — Paul Miles and Others v European Schools
(Case C-196/09) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU - Complaints Board of the European Schools - System of remuneration of teachers seconded to the European Schools - No adjustment of remuneration following depreciation in sterling - Compatibility with Articles 18 TFEU and 45 TFEU)
(2011/C 232/06)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Chambre de recours des écoles européennes

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Paul Miles, Robert Watson Mac Donald

Defendant: European Schools

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Complaints Board of the European Schools — Interpretation of Articles 12, 39 and 234 of the EC Treaty — Meaning of national court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 234 EC — Remuneration system for teachers on secondment to the European Schools — No arrangements for adapting the remuneration by reason of the pound sterling being devalued — Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and the freedom of movement for workers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to rule on a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Complaints Board of the European Schools.


(1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.
Case T-303/11: Action brought on 14 June 2011 — Leopardi Dittajuti v OHIM — Llopart Vilarós (CONTE LEOPARDI DITTAJUTI)
Date: 2011-06-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), sparkling wine, trade-mark law








C_2011238EN.01002901.xml










13.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/29





Action brought on 14 June 2011 — Leopardi Dittajuti v OHIM — Llopart Vilarós (CONTE LEOPARDI DITTAJUTI)
(Case T-303/11)
2011/C 238/50
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Piervittorio Francesco Leopardi Dittajuti (Numana, Italy) (represented by: D. De Simone, D. Demarinis, and G. Orsoni, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pedro Llopart Vilarós (Sant Sadurní D'Anoia, Spain)

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 6 April 2011 in case R 1437/2010-2, and consequently require the Office to take the necessary measures to comply with the given judgment; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of all instances of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CONTE LEOPARDI DITTAJUTI’, for goods and services in classes 33, 35, 40, and 43 — Community trade mark application No 6428338

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: Spanish trade mark registration No 2073540 of the figurative mark ‘Leopardi’, for goods in class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods and services

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

Pleas in law: Misinterpretation of article 60 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, of Rules 49(1), 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, applicable to the appeal proceedings pursuant to Rule 50(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal: (i) incorrectly deemed not to grant a suspension of the proceedings and postponing the deadline as jointly requested by the parties; (ii) incorrectly took into account the parties’ joint request only after the lapse of the deadline of submission of the statement of grounds, thus factually keeping the concerned party from submitting the same within the due date and causing the time-limit to expire; and (iii) infringement of the procedural requirements by the Board of Appeal, as it did not take into account the grounds of appeal, although the relevant statements had been submitted beyond the time-limit, also in breach of the general principle of procedural economy and of preservation of the validity of case-file records.