do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-453/11: Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Szajner v OHIM — Forge de Laguiole (LAGUIOLE)
Date: 2011-08-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011298EN.01002602.xml










8.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 298/26





Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Szajner v OHIM — Forge de Laguiole (LAGUIOLE)
(Case T-453/11)
2011/C 298/49
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Gilbert Szajner (Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, France) (represented by: A. Lakits-Josse, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Forge de Laguiole SARL (Laguiole, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 1 June 2011 in so far as it stated that Community trade mark No 2 468 379 is declared invalid in respect of the goods covered by the application for annulment in Classes 8, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 28 and 34;










—


Order Forge de Laguiole to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Szajner, including the costs of representation.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘LAGUIOLE’ for goods and services in, inter alia, Classes 8, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 28, 34 and 38 — Community trade mark No 2 468 379.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Forge de Laguiole SARL.

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the application for a declaration of invalidity was made on the basis of Article 53(1)(c) and Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, based on the business name of Forge de Laguiole.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: partial annulment of the Cancellation Division’s decision and declaration that Community trade mark No 2 468 379 is invalid in part.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 in so far as, first, the Board of Appeal incorrectly found that the business name of Forge de Laguiole was not subject to the principle of speciality and that the name could be protected in respect of business activities not actually carried out by Forge de Laguiole and, secondly, there is no likelihood of confusion between the business name of Forge de Laguiole, used in respect of knives, and the trade mark ‘LAGUIOLE’, registered in respect of goods unrelated to cutlery.
Case C-414/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 8 August 2011 — Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v DEMO Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emporiki Etairia Farmakon
Date: 2011-08-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European patent, TRIPS, chemical product, patent law, pharmaceutical product








C_2011298EN.01001701.xml










8.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 298/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 8 August 2011 — Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v DEMO Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emporiki Etairia Farmakon
(Case C-414/11)
2011/C 298/30
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Polimeles Protodikio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings


Plaintiffs: Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: DEMO Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emporiki Etairia Farmakon

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement setting out the framework for patent protection fall within a field for which the Member States continue to have primary competence and, if so, can the Member States themselves accord direct effect to that provision, and can the national court apply it directly subject to the requirements laid down by national law?










2.


Under Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement are chemical and pharmaceutical products patentable subject matter provided that they satisfy the requirements for the grant of patents and, if so, what is the scope of their protection?










3.


Under Articles 27 and 70 of the TRIPS Agreement, do patents covered by the reservation in Article 167(2) of the 1973 Munich Convention which were granted before 7 February 1992, that is to say, before the above agreement entered into force, and concerned the invention of pharmaceutical products, but which, because of the aforementioned reservation, were granted solely to protect their production process, fall within the protection for all patents pursuant to the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement and, if so, what is the extent and content of that protection, that is to say, have the pharmaceutical products themselves also been protected since the above agreement entered into force or does protection continue to apply to their production process only or must a distinction be made based on the content of the application for grant of a patent, that is to say, as to whether, by describing the invention and the relevant claims, protection was sought at the outset for the product or the production process or both?
Case T-451/11: Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Giga-Byte Technology v OHIM — Haskins (Gigabyte)
Date: 2011-08-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011298EN.01002601.xml










8.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 298/26





Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Giga-Byte Technology v OHIM — Haskins (Gigabyte)
(Case T-451/11)
2011/C 298/48
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Giga-Byte Technology Co., Ltd (Taipei, Taiwan) (represented by: F. Schwerbrock, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Robert A. Haskins (Pennsylvania, USA)

Form of order sought







—


Dismiss the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 May 2011 in case R 2047/2010-2, as well as the decision of the Opposition Division





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Gigabyte’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 5550009

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 4954095 of the word mark ‘GIGABITER’, for services in classes 39, 40 and 42

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Section 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the contested services in classes 37 and 42 are similar to the opponent’s services in class 42.
Case F-81/11: Action brought on 8 August 2011 — ZZ v EASA
Date: 2011-08-08
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: promotion, reassignment, staff assessment








C_2011340EN.01004101.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/41





Action brought on 8 August 2011 — ZZ v EASA
(Case F-81/11)
2011/C 340/84
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B.-H. Vincent, lawyer)

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to re-assign the applicant to a non-managerial post in the interest of the service as a result of an unfavourable evaluation report, as well as an application to pay the applicant an amount by way of compensation for the damage allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Executive Director of 17 December 2010 concerning the re-assignment of the applicant to ‘a non-managerial post in the interest of the service’ as a result of an unfavourable management evaluation report;










—


Order EASA to pay the applicant an amount fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 350 000,00 by way of compensation for the non-material and professional damage he has suffered, with interest for delayed payment at the legal rate from the date at which that amount becomes due;










—


Order AESA to pay the costs.
Case C-597/10: Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2011-08-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental protection, environmental risk prevention, flood, public safety








C_2011340EN.01001402.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/14





Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-597/10) (1)

2011/C 340/25
Language of the case: French
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.
Case T-435/11: Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Universal Display v OHIM (UniversalPHOLED)
Date: 2011-08-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011298EN.01002201.xml










8.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 298/22





Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Universal Display v OHIM (UniversalPHOLED)
(Case T-435/11)
2011/C 298/41
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Universal Display Corp. (New Jersey, USA) (represented by: A. Poulter and C. Lehr, Solicitors)

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

Form of order sought







—


Overturn the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 May 2011 in case R 215/2011-2; and










—


Accept the Community trade mark application and allow it to proceed to publication;





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘UniversalPHOLED’ for goods in class 1 — Community trade mark application No W01015224

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its analysis of the registrability of the Community trade mark application ‘UniversalPHOLED’.