do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-467/11: Action brought on 29 August 2011 — Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM — dm drogerie markt (360 o SONIC ENERGY)
Date: 2011-08-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011319EN.01002301.xml










29.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/23





Action brought on 29 August 2011 — Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM — dm drogerie markt (360o SONIC ENERGY)
(Case T-467/11)
2011/C 319/49
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Company (New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler and G. Schindler, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany)

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 25 May 2011 in case R 1094/2010-2; and










—


Reject the opposition





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘360° SONIC ENERGY’, for ‘toothbrushes’ in class 21 — Community trade mark application No 6236533

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: International trade mark registration No 842882 of the word mark ‘SONIC POWER’, for goods in classes 3 and 21

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly found a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.
Case F-85/11: Action brought on 29 August 2011 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2011-08-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, assistant, promotion








C_2011340EN.01004202.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/42





Action brought on 29 August 2011 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-85/11)
2011/C 340/88
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A.Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AST 5 from 1 March 2009 in the 2009 promotion exercise

Form of order sought







—


Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AST 5 from 1 March 2009 in the 2009 promotion exercise;










—


Order the Commission do pay the costs.
Case F-84/11: Action brought on 29 August 2011 — ZZ and Others v Court of Justice
Date: 2011-08-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, indemnification, remuneration of work, shift work








C_2011340EN.01004201.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/42





Action brought on 29 August 2011 — ZZ and Others v Court of Justice
(Case F-84/11)
2011/C 340/87
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice rejecting the applicants’ request for payment of the allowance for continuous work or shiftwork provided for in Article 1 of Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 300/76 of 9 February 1976 determining the categories of officials entitled to allowances for shiftwork, and the rates and conditions thereof (OJ 1976 L 38, p. 1) and damages

Form of order sought







—


Annulment of the Appointing Authority’s decision of 17 May 2011 rejecting the applicants’ request of 17 January 2011 for, first, payment of the allowance for shiftwork provided for in Article 1 of Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 300/76 of 9 February 1976, as most recently amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) of 11 December 2006, and, second, compensation for the damage caused by the Appointing Authority’s failure to reply to their first or to their second request within the statutory time-limit and its failure to indicate the available remedies in the express rejection which caused the loss of their chance to succeed in legal proceedings;










—


Order the Court of Justice to pay to each applicant a sum of EUR 10 700,76 as compensation for their material damage and a sum of EUR 3 000 each for non-material damage;










—


Order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.
Action brought on 29 August 2011 by the Kingdom of Norway against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-11/11)
Date: 2011-08-29
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Norway, State aid, interpretation of the law








C_2011325EN.01000801.xml










10.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/8





Action brought on 29 August 2011 by the Kingdom of Norway against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
(Case E-11/11)
2011/C 325/04
An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 29 August 2011 by the Kingdom of Norway, represented by Ketil BØE MOEN, advocate, Office of the Attorney General, and Beate GABRIELSEN, adviser, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as agents for the Kingdom of Norway.
The applicant requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 205/11/COL of 29 June 2011; and










2.


order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 205/11/COL of 29 June 2011 declared that the three measures provided for in the Supplementary Agreement, signed by Norwegian authorities and Hurtigruten in 2009, constituted State aid which is incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA in so far as they constitute a form of overcompensation for public service.










—


The applicant seeks the annulment of the contested Decision.










—


The applicant claims, inter alia, that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:






—


has committed a manifest error in law and/or of assessment in finding that the measures in question constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA,










—


has committed a manifest error in law and/or of assessment under Article 59(2) of the EEA,










—


breached the principle of legal certainty when adopting the contested Decision, and










—


has failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons under Article 16 of the SCA when adopting the contested Decision.