do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-376/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 15 July 2011 — Pie Optiek v Bureau Gevers, European Registry for Internet Domains
Date: 2011-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet address, trade-mark law








C_2011298EN.01001101.xml










8.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 298/11





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 15 July 2011 — Pie Optiek v Bureau Gevers, European Registry for Internet Domains
(Case C-376/11)
2011/C 298/21
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium)

Parties to the main proceedings


Apellant: Pie Optiek

Respondents: Bureau Gevers, European Registry for Internet Domains

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 12(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the.eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where the prior right concerned is a trade mark right, the words ‘licensees of prior rights’ may refer to a person who has been authorised by the proprietor of the trade mark solely to register, in his own name but on behalf of the licensor, a domain name identical or similar to the trade mark, but without being authorised to put the trade mark to other uses or to use the sign as a trade mark — for example, for the purpose of marketing of goods or services under the trade mark?










2.


If that question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 21(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the.eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration be interpreted as meaning that ‘rights or legitimate interest’ exist even if the ‘licensee of prior rights’ has obtained registration of the.eu domain name in his own name but on behalf of the proprietor of the trade mark where the latter is not eligible in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 April 2002 on the implementation of the.eu Top Level Domain (2)?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 162, p. 40.

(2)  OJ 2002 L 113, p. 1.
Case T-380/11: Action brought on 15 July 2011 — Palirria Souliotis v Commission
Date: 2011-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, European Commission, common customs tariff, competition, foodstuff, infringement of EU law








C_2011282EN.01002902.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/29





Action brought on 15 July 2011 — Palirria Souliotis v Commission
(Case T-380/11)
2011/C 282/60
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Anonymi Viotechniki kai Emporiki Etairia Kataskevis Konservon — Palirria Souliotis AE (Psacha, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2011 of 6 May 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2011 L 122, p. 63); and










—


Order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed an essential procedural requirement as it failed to properly consult the Nomenclature Committee. In addition, the Commission failed to address the opinion submitted by the applicant.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded the limits of the powers conferred upon it by Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1)










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by classifying tinned stuff wine leaves under the CN-code set out in the annex to the contested regulation.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6282 — ERG/Lukoil/JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-07-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, economic consequence, electrical energy, exchange of information, merger control, oil industry, renewable energy








C_2011209EN.01001501.xml










15.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/15





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6282 — ERG/Lukoil/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 209/06
On 5 July 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6282. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-366/10 P: Order of the General Court of 15 July 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Non-contractual liability — Reimbursement of recoverable costs — Exception for parallel proceedings — Procedural defects — Rights of the defence — Appeal partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2011-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment, allowances and expenses, appeal, health care








C_2011282EN.01002001.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/20





Order of the General Court of 15 July 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission
(Case T-366/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Non-contractual liability - Reimbursement of recoverable costs - Exception for parallel proceedings - Procedural defects - Rights of the defence - Appeal partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded)
2011/C 282/39
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Curral and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 22 June 2010 in Case F-78/09 Marcuccio v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking to annul that order.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed;










2.


Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
Case T-108/08: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2011 — Zino Davidoff v OHIM — Kleinakis kai SIA (GOOD LIFE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark GOOD LIFE — Earlier national word mark GOOD LIFE — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Duty of diligence — Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2011-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, trade-mark law








C_2011269EN.01004601.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/46





Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2011 — Zino Davidoff v OHIM — Kleinakis kai SIA (GOOD LIFE)
(Case T-108/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GOOD LIFE - Earlier national word mark GOOD LIFE - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Duty of diligence - Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2011/C 269/100
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Zino Davidoff SA (Fribourg, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke and J. Laporta Insa, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: I. Kleinakis kai SIA OE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Siotou, lawyer)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2007 (Case R 298/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between I. Kleinakis kai SIA OE and Zino Davidoff SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 November 2007 (Case R 298/2007-2);










2.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Zino Davidoff SA;










3.


Orders I. Kleinakis kai SIA OE to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6229 — PAG/Mitsui/AMT JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-07-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, motor vehicle








C_2011209EN.01001401.xml










15.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/14





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6229 — PAG/Mitsui/AMT JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 209/04
On 7 July 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6229. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6283 — Valero/Chevron)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-07-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, natural gas, oil refining








C_2011209EN.01001502.xml










15.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/15





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6283 — Valero/Chevron)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 209/07
On 7 July 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6283. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.