do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-581/08: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2011 — Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional v OHIM — Proton Motor Fuel Cell (PM PROTON MOTOR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark PM PROTON MOTOR — Earlier national, Benelux and Community word and figurative marks PROTON — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Lack of similarity between the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
Date: 2011-09-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011331EN.01001702.xml










12.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/17





Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2011 — Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional v OHIM — Proton Motor Fuel Cell (PM PROTON MOTOR)
(Case T-581/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark PM PROTON MOTOR - Earlier national, Benelux and Community word and figurative marks PROTON - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Lack of similarity between the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
2011/C 331/31
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn Bhd (Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia) (represented by: J. Blind, C. Kleiner and S. Ziegler, 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, intervener before the General Court: Proton Motor Fuel Cell GmbH (Puchheim, Germany) (represented by: C. Sedlmeir, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 October 2008 (Case R 1675/2007-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn Bhd and Proton Motor Fuel Cell GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn Bhd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.
Case T-518/11: Action brought on 27 September 2011 — BTL Diffusion v OHIM — dm-drogerie markt (babyTOlove)
Date: 2011-09-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, early childhood, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011355EN.01002301.xml










3.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/23





Action brought on 27 September 2011 — BTL Diffusion v OHIM — dm-drogerie markt (babyTOlove)
(Case T-518/11)
2011/C 355/42
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: BTL Diffusion (Saint Cloud, France) (represented by: A. Berendes, lawyer)

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 8 July 2011 in case R 883/2010-2 to the extend that it: (i) upheld the opposition and rejected the contested Community trade mark application for ‘surgical medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments, orthopaedic articles; suture materials’ in class 10 and ‘clothing, footwear headgear’ in class 25, and (ii) dismissed the applicant’s request to annul the contested decision on a point not raised in the appeal to the extent that it upheld the opposition for ‘games and playthings; gymnastic and porting articles not included in other classes’ in class 28; and










—


Confirm the said decision for ‘artificial limbs, eyes and teeth’ in class 10 and ‘decorations for Christmas trees’ in class 28.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘babyTOlove’, for goods in classes 10, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 7104219

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 935598 of the word mark ‘babylove’, for goods in classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 and 32; International trade mark registration No 979365 of the word mark ‘Baby Love’, for goods in classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 and 32

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the decision of the Opposition Division; upheld the opposition and rejected the contested Community trade mark application for part of the goods in class 10 and 25; dismissed the appeal for the remainder

Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly assessed likelihood of confusion.
Call for proposals under the 2012 work programme ‘People’ of the Seventh EC Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities
Date: 2011-09-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, research and development








C_2011283EN.01001001.xml










27.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/10





Call for proposals under the 2012 work programme ‘People’ of the Seventh EC Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities
2011/C 283/06
Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals under the 2012 work programme ‘People’ of the 7th Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007 to 2013).
Proposals are invited for the following calls and a prize. Call deadlines and budgets are given in the call texts, which are published on the relevant European Commission website.

‘People’ Specific Programme:







Call title


Call identifier




Researchers’ Night


FP7-PEOPLE-2012-NIGHT




This call for proposals relates to the 2012 work programme adopted by Commission Decision C(2011) 5033 of 19 July 2011.
Information on the modalities of the calls and the prize, the work programmes and the guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals is available through the relevant European Commission website.
Case C-498/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by Toshiba Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2011 in Case T-113/07: Toshiba Corp. v European Commission
Date: 2011-09-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electronics industry, offence, proof, rights of the defence








C_2011347EN.01001802.xml










26.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/18





Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by Toshiba Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2011 in Case T-113/07: Toshiba Corp. v European Commission
(Case C-498/11 P)
2011/C 347/28
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Toshiba Corp. (represented by: J.F. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, A. Dawes, Solicitor, S. Sakellariou, Δικηγόρος)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it rejected Toshiba's claim for annulment of Article 1 of the Decision, and annul the contested Decision;










—


in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to points of law; and, in any event,










—


award Toshiba its costs, including its costs in the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court committed several errors in law when it rejected its claim for annulment of Article 1 of the Decision:






a)


it erred in law in concluding that the witness statements furnished by ABB were capable of proving the existence of a common understanding;










b)


it erred in law in concluding that there was both corroborating evidence and indirect evidence of the existence of a common understanding;










c)


it erred in law in finding that Toshiba participated both in a single and in a continuous infringement; and










d)


it erred in law in finding that Toshiba's rights of defence were not breached by the nondisclosure of several exculpatory witness statements.
Case C-499/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Deutschland Inc., Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH, Dow Europe GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-42/07: The Dow Chemical Company and others v European Commission
Date: 2011-09-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, fine, invoicing








C_2011355EN.01001101.xml










3.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/11





Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Deutschland Inc., Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH, Dow Europe GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-42/07: The Dow Chemical Company and others v European Commission
(Case C-499/11 P)
2011/C 355/18
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Deutschland Inc., Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH, Dow Europe GmbH (represented by: D. Schroeder, Rechtsanwalt, T. Kuhn, Rechtsanwalt, T. Graf, Advocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


The Dow Chemical Company respectfully requests the Court of Justice to set aside the General Court's judgment in Case T-42/07 in so far as it dismisses its request to annul the Commission's decision of 29 November 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.638 insofar as it relates to it;










—


The Dow Chemical Company respectfully requests the Court of Justice to annul the Commission's decision of 29 November 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.638 insofar as it relates to it;










—


All Appellants respectfully request the Court of Justice to set aside the General Court's judgment in Case T-42/07 in so far as it dismisses their request to substantially reduce their fines;










—


All Appellants respectfully request the Court of Justice to substantially reduce their fines;










—


All Appellants respectfully request the Court of Justice






—


to order the Commission to pay the Appellants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and










—


take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate.









Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal contains four pleas. According to the first plea, the General Court erred in law by assuming that the Commission does not have to exercise its discretion properly and by not exercising the full scope of judicial review with regard to the exercise of the Commission's discretion in holding The Dow Chemical Company liable. According to the second plea, the General Court erred in law with respect to the differential treatment applied to the starting amounts of the fine. According to the third plea, the General Court erred in law by confirming that the Commission was entitled to take The Dow Chemical Company's turnover into account. According to the fourth plea, the General Court erred in law by confirming that the Commission's application of the deterrence multiplier is not discriminatory.
Case F-105/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Lübking and Others v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Promotion — 2005 promotion exercise — New career structure — Extension of career by the introduction of new grades with no equivalents in the old Staff Regulations — Application of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and the GIP applicable with effect from 2005 — Principle of equal treatment — Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 — Transitional measures — Action manifestly bound to fail)
Date: 2011-09-27
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrator, equal treatment, promotion, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2011340EN.01003803.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/38





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Lübking and Others v Commission
(Case F-105/06) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Promotion - 2005 promotion exercise - New career structure - Extension of career by the introduction of new grades with no equivalents in the old Staff Regulations - Application of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and the GIP applicable with effect from 2005 - Principle of equal treatment - Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 - Transitional measures - Action manifestly bound to fail)
2011/C 340/78
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Johannes Lübking and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by M. Simm and B. Driessen, and subsequently by M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision published in Administrative Notices No 85 2005 of 23 November 2005 in so far as it provided for promotion of the applicants to grade A*9 and not grade A*10 in the 2005 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application is dismissed.










2.


The applicants and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs.










3.


The Council of the European Union, the intervener, shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 281 of 18.11.06, p. 45.
Case T-515/11: Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Delphi Technologies v OHIM (INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD)
Date: 2011-09-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronics industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011355EN.01002201.xml










3.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/22





Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Delphi Technologies v OHIM (INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD)
(Case T-515/11)
2011/C 355/40
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Delphi Technologies, Inc. (Wilmington, United States of America) (represented by: C. Albrecht and J. Heumann, lawyers)

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

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 23 June 2011 in case R 1967/2010-2;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD’, for goods in classes 7, 9, 10 and 12 — Community trade mark application No 7072705

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) misunderstood the burden of arguments and proof laid down in Article 7(1)(b); (ii) erred in applying the relevant case law of the ECJ for the assessment of distinctiveness of slogans and the possible meaning of the mark applied for; and, (iii) neglected the substantial use and notoriety of the mark which is important for the perception of the slogan by the relevant consumers. Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and the general principles of the administrative proceedings, as the Board of Appeal did not take into account that identical and similar slogans with the word ‘INNOVATION’ have already been registered in the EU and in particular by the OHIM.
Case C-497/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-81/09 Hellenic Republic v Commission
Date: 2011-09-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative check, audit, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality, private sector, project management








C_2011340EN.01001201.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/12





Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-81/09 Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case C-497/11 P)
2011/C 340/21
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos, K. Boskovits, and G. Michailopoulos)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Set aside the judgment of 13 July 2011 of the General Court of the European Union in Case Τ-81/09 in so far as it dismissed the action brought by the Hellenic Republic;










—


uphold the action brought by the Hellenic Republic in Case Τ-81/09;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.




First plea:
 misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 23(2) of Regulation 4253/88 and Article 12 of Regulation 2064/97, and also Articles 54 and 57 of Regulation 1605/02, in relation to the scope of the audit powers which were conferred by the Commission on private companies.










2.




Second plea:
 misinterpretation of the general principle of proportionality and failure to state adequate reasons in relation to the ‘Northern Crete Trunk Road’ project, in so far as the Commission applied a correction of 25 % to that project merely by reference to the prior audit by the Greek authorities in relation to part of that project.










3.




Third plea:
 misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 2 of Regulation 2064/97 in relation to the ‘Κakia Scala’ project, in so far as the General Court ruled on the sufficiency of the audit trail for the project with reference to qualitative factors.










4.




Fourth plea:
 misinterpretation and misapplication of the principle of equal treatment of candidates and Article 22(1) of Directive 93/37 in relation to the projects ‘K. Varibobis-Bogiati & Afidnes-K. Markopoulou — Section 1’, ‘Aerino — Μ. Μοnastiri’, ‘M. Monastiri — Beginning of the Larissa bypass’and ‘Larisa bypass’ in so far as the established terms and conditions for the holding of the restricted tendering procedure were known to all interested parties and served the project economy.










5.




Fifth plea:
 failure to examine a substantive plea of the Hellenic Republic in relation to the terms of the tendering procedure for the projects ‘Aerino — Μ. Μοnastiri’, ‘M. Monastiri — Beginning of the Larissa bypass’ and‘Larisa bypass’, in breach of the rights of the defence and the right to be heard.
Case F-82/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Dittert v Commission (Staff Cases — Officials — Promotion — 2006 promotion year — New career structures — Extension of careers by the introduction of new grades having no equivalent in the old Staff Regulations — Application of Article 45 and Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, as well as the general implementing provisions applicable from 2005 — Principle of equal treatment — Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 — Transitional measures — Action which must manifestly be dismissed)
Date: 2011-09-27
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: appointment of staff, equal treatment, promotion, servant (EU), staff assessment








C_2011340EN.01004001.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/40





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Dittert v Commission
(Case F-82/07) (1)

(Staff Cases - Officials - Promotion - 2006 promotion year - New career structures - Extension of careers by the introduction of new grades having no equivalent in the old Staff Regulations - Application of Article 45 and Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, as well as the general implementing provisions applicable from 2005 - Principle of equal treatment - Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 - Transitional measures - Action which must manifestly be dismissed)
2011/C 340/81
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Daniel Dittert (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, later by: M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 23 April 2007 to promote the applicant to grade AD 9 and not AD 10.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Mr Dittert and the European Commission are ordered to bear their own costs.










3.


The Council of the European Union, which intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 235 of 6.10.07, p. 32.
Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1061/2010 of 28 September 2010 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of household washing machines ( OJ L 314, 30.11.2010 )
Date: 2011-09-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European standard, consumer information, energy consumption, energy saving, harmonisation of standards, household electrical appliance, labelling




L_2011249EN.01002101.xml










27.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 249/21







Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1061/2010 of 28 September 2010 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of household washing machines
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 314 of 30 November 2010
)

On page 61, Annex VII, the mathematical formula in point 1(c)(i) should read as follows:







On page 62, Annex VII, the mathematical formula in point 1(c)(ii) should read as follows: