do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-569/11: Action brought on 4 November 2011 — Gitana v OHIM — Rosenruist (GITANA)
Date: 2011-11-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012006EN.01002202.xml










7.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/22





Action brought on 4 November 2011 — Gitana v OHIM — Rosenruist (GITANA)
(Case T-569/11)
2012/C 6/41
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Gitana SA (Pregny-Chambésy, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Benech, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rosenruist — Gestão e serviços, Lda (Funchal, Madeira)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 August 2011 in case R 1825/2007-1, and authorise the registration of the Community trade mark application ‘GITANA’ No 3063344 for all the goods in classes 18 and 25; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘GITANA’, for goods and services in classes 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 34 to 36 and 38 — Community trade mark application No 3063344

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 1609312 of the figurative mark ‘KITANA’, for goods in class 25; International trade mark registration No W00555706 of the figurative mark ‘KITANA’, for goods in classes 18 and 25; Italian trade mark registration No 531768 of the figurative mark ‘KITANA’, for goods in classes 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the Community trade mark application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and dismissed the appeal for the remaining

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the existence of likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2011-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Canada, Latvia, catch of fish, catch quota, common fisheries policy, crustacean








C_2011321EN.01000701.xml










4.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 321/7





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
2011/C 321/07
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


28.9.2011




Duration


28.9.2011-31.12.2011




Member State


Latvia




Stock or Group of stocks


PRA/N3L.




Species


Northern prawn (Pandalus borealis)




Zone


NAFO 3L




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


—




Web link to the decision of the Member State:
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm


(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6262 — AGRANA/RWA/JV) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-foodstuffs, agricultural production, economic concentration, merger control








C_2011321EN.01001901.xml










4.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 321/19





Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6262 — AGRANA/RWA/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 321/14
(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)
On 30 September 2011, the European Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration between AGRANA and RWA. On 27 October 2011, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.
Case T-573/11: Action brought on 4 November 2011 — JAS v Commission
Date: 2011-11-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: customs, customs inspection, import refund, rights of the defence








C_2012025EN.01005501.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/55






Action brought on 4 November 2011 — JAS v Commission
(Case T-573/11)
(2012/C 25/107)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: JAS Jet Air Service France (JAS) (France) (represented by: T. Gallois, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Commission’s decision of 5 August 2011 in Case REM 01/2008 in which the Commission:






—


decided that there was no special situation; and










—


refused the application for remission of import duties in the amount of EUR 1 001 778,20 submitted by JAS JET AIR SERVICE on 24 January 2008;














—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based, in so far as the Commission gave hypothetical reasons.










2.


Second plea in law: infringement of the rights of the defence in that the Commission did not require the national administration to produce originals or copies of the customs declarations to which the application for remission related, although those documents would prove that a physical check had taken place.










3.


Third plea in law: irregular examination of the case in that the burden of proof was reversed, the Commission having concluded, on the basis of the national authorities’ assertion that the customs declarations in question had disappeared, that there was no proof that the customs administration had physically checked the goods. The applicant submits that the Commission cannot make good that failure on the part of the national authorities, to the detriment of the applicant.










4.


Fourth plea in law: infringement of Article 239 of the Community Customs Code (1) in so far as the Commission limited the scope of the definition of ‘special situation’.










5.


Fifth plea in law: errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in so far as the Commission found that there was no ‘special situation’ for the purposes of Article 239 of the Customs Code, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant was faced with the same situation as another forwarding agent, a Dutch company, whose situation had been deemed by the Commission to constitute a ‘special situation’.






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).