do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-606/11: Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Woodman Labs V OHIM — 2 Mas 2 Publicidad Integral (HERO)
Date: 2011-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012032EN.01003201.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/32





Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Woodman Labs V OHIM — 2 Mas 2 Publicidad Integral (HERO)
(Case T-606/11)
2012/C 32/66
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Woodman Labs, Inc. (Sausalito, United States of America) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 2 Mas 2 Publicidad Integral, SL (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 September 2011 in case R 876/2010-4; and










—


Order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the defendant.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HERO’, for goods in class 9 — Community trade mark application No 6750376

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 5883533 of the figurative mark in gold and black ‘hero PICTURES’, for goods and services in classes 9 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: The Community trade mark application was allowed to proceed for part of the goods in class 9

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 wrongly ruled that likelihood of confusion exists between the earlier mark and the Community trade mark application.
Case T-607/11: Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Henkel and Henkel France v Commission
Date: 2011-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, infringement of EU law, provision of documents, rights of the defence








C_2012025EN.01006402.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/64






Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Henkel and Henkel France v Commission
(Case T-607/11)
(2012/C 25/123)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany), Henkel France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: R. Polley, T. Kuhn, F. Brunet and E. Paroche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul the Commission’s decision of 30 September 2011 not to transfer fifteen documents produced in the Case COMP/39.579 (consumer detergents) to the French Competition Authority;










—


order that the Commission allows the applicants to rely on the requested documents in the ongoing proceedings before the Authority;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses incurred in relation to the present application; and










—


take any other measures that the General Court considers appropriate.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action contains one plea. According to this single plea, the Commission unlawfully dismissed the French Competition Authority’s request to transfer the requested fifteen documents and thereby infringed its duties under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union and the applicants’ fundamental rights of defense and the principle of equality of arms.
Case T-238/09: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 Sniace v Commission (State aid — Agreements relating to debt rescheduling — Decision declaring an aid to be incompatible with the common market — Obligation to give reasons)
Date: 2011-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, common market, control of State aid, public debt








C_2012025EN.01004802.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/48






Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 Sniace v Commission
(Case T-238/09) (1)

(State aid - Agreements relating to debt rescheduling - Decision declaring an aid to be incompatible with the common market - Obligation to give reasons)
(2012/C 25/92)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Sniace (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F.J. Moncholí Fernández and S. Ratting, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agent)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2009/612/CE of 10 March 2009 relating to measure C 5/2000 (ex NN 118/1997) implemented by Spain in favour of Sniace, SA, Torrelavega, Cantabria, and amending Decision 1999/395/EC (OJ 2009 L 210, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sniace SA to bear its own costs and, in addition, to pay the European Commission's costs, including those incurred in the application for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.
COMMISSION OPINION APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD EXTENDING TO 20-9-2015Communication of Mr Šefčovič
Date: 2011-11-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Economic and Social Committee, appointment of members

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 30.11.2011 
SEC(2011) 1503 final 

COMMISSION OPINION 

APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD EXTENDING TO 20-9-2015 

Communication of Mr Šefčovič 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMMISSION OPINION 

APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD EXTENDING TO 20-9-2015 

Communication of Mr Šefčovič 

According to article 302, second paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union,  the  members  of  the  Committee  are  appointed  by  the  Council,  who  consults  the 
Commission. On 8 November 2011, the Council has requested the Commission’s opinion on 
the nomination of a German member of the EESC. 

The Commission hereby decides to give a positive answer on the proposed appointment. 

EN 

2 

   EN
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6388 — Ecolab/Nalco Holding Company)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-11-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, merger control, polishing and scouring preparations, water treatment








C_2011349EN.01000101.xml










30.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6388 — Ecolab/Nalco Holding Company)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 349/01
On 8 November 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 32011M6388. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Information relating to the entry into force of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union
Date: 2011-11-30
Institutions: General Secretariat of the Council
Subjects: Bulgaria, GATT, New Zealand, Romania, accession to the European Union, agreement (EU), import (EU), ratification of an agreement, tariff agreement








L_2011317EN.01000102.xml










30.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 317/1







Information relating to the entry into force of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union

The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union (1) will enter into force on 1 December 2011.


(1)  See page 2 of this Official Journal.
Case T-601/11: Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Dansk Automat Brancheforening v Commission
Date: 2011-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Denmark, Internet, State aid, control of State aid, game of chance








C_2012025EN.01006302.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/63






Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Dansk Automat Brancheforening v Commission
(Case T-601/11)
(2012/C 25/121)
Language of the case: Danish

Parties


Applicant: Dansk Automat Brancheforening (Fredericia, Denmark) (represented by: K. Dyekjær, T. Høg and J. Flodgaard)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 20 September 2011 in Case No C 35/2010 (ex N 302/2010) on measures which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gaming in the Danish Gaming Duties Act.










—


Declare that Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 20 September 2011 in Case No C 35/2010 (ex N 302/2010) on measures which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gaming in the Danish Gaming Duties Act is invalid in so far as it provides that the measure is approved as compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.










—


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: the contested decision is vitiated on grounds of failure to state reasons, as the arguments put forward in support of the plea that the aid in question — which consists in duties on online gaming being lower than duties on gaming through establishments based in Denmark — is compatible with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU are unrelated to the criteria laid down in that provision.










2.


Second plea in law: the contested decision should be set aside on essential procedural grounds, as the applicant was not given the opportunity to put forward its views on the application of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.










3.


Third plea in law: incorrect application of the law in that the Commission’s decision is manifestly incorrect, as there is no power conferred in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU to declare the aid in question compatible with the Treaty and the Commission exceeded its discretion under that provision.










4.


Fourth plea in law: misuse of powers in that the contested decision is not actually based on the objectives which form the background for the provision in question.










5.


Fifth plea in law: the contested decision disregards the principle of proportionality, as it has not been demonstrated that the decision does not go beyond what is necessary.
Case T-123/10: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Hartmann v OHIM (Complete) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark ‘Complete’ — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Statement of reasons — Goods forming a homogenous group — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2011-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012025EN.01004901.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/49






Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Hartmann v OHIM (Complete)
(Case T-123/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark ‘Complete’ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Statement of reasons - Goods forming a homogenous group - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
(2012/C 25/93)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by N. Aicher, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: B. Schmidt and later by: R. Manea and R. Pethke, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 January 2010 (Case R 601/2009-4) concerning an application to register the word mark ‘Complete’ as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 January 2010 (Case R 601/2009-4);










2.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Paul Hartmann AG, including the indispensable costs incurred by the latter in the procedure before the Appeals Chamber.






(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.
Case T-52/08 P: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Commission v Carpi Badía (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2005 promotion procedure — Priority points — Points not allocated due to a technical problem — A* Promotion Committee — Allocation of a lower number of points than had been proposed by the applicant’s superior — Failure to include the applicant in the list of officials eligible for promotion)
Date: 2011-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, promotion, staff assessment








C_2012025EN.01004703.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/47






Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Commission v Carpi Badía
(Case T-52/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2005 promotion procedure - Priority points - Points not allocated due to a technical problem - A* Promotion Committee - Allocation of a lower number of points than had been proposed by the applicant’s superior - Failure to include the applicant in the list of officials eligible for promotion)
(2012/C 25/90)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Other party to the proceedings: José María Carpi Badía (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 in Case F 110/06 Carpi Badía v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, with a view to having that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay Mr José María Carpi Badía’s costs.






(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-11-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011349EN.01000301.xml










30.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

29 November 2011
2011/C 349/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3336




JPY


Japanese yen


103,82




DKK


Danish krone


7,4377




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85365




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2195




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2282




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8495




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,548




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,08




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6980




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5270




RON


Romanian leu


4,3518




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4692




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3332




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3717




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,3929




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7519




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7306




KRW


South Korean won


1 523,71




ZAR


South African rand


11,1472




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,4778




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5010




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 211,39




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2255




PHP


Philippine peso


58,174




RUB


Russian rouble


41,8100




THB


Thai baht


41,715




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4621




MXN


Mexican peso


18,6147




INR


Indian rupee


69,4210






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-51/08 P: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Commission v Dittert (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2005 promotion procedure — Priority points — Points not allocated due to a technical problem — A* Promotion Committee — Allocation of a lower number of points than had been proposed by the applicant’s superior — Failure to include the applicant in the list of officials eligible for promotion)
Date: 2011-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, promotion, staff assessment








C_2012025EN.01004702.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/47






Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Commission v Dittert
(Case T-51/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2005 promotion procedure - Priority points - Points not allocated due to a technical problem - A* Promotion Committee - Allocation of a lower number of points than had been proposed by the applicant’s superior - Failure to include the applicant in the list of officials eligible for promotion)
(2012/C 25/89)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Other party to the proceedings: Daniel Dittert (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 in Case F 109/06 Dittert v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, with a view to having that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay Mr Daniel Dittert’s costs.






(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.
Case T-303/11: Order of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Leopardi Dittajuti v OHIM — Llopart Vilarós (CONTE LEOPARDI DITTAJUTI)
Date: 2011-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sparkling wine, trade-mark law








C_2012025EN.01006601.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/66






Order of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Leopardi Dittajuti v OHIM — Llopart Vilarós (CONTE LEOPARDI DITTAJUTI)
(Case T-303/11) (1)

(2012/C 25/126)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
Case T-623/11: Action brought on 30 November 2011 — PICO Food v OHIM — Sobieraj (MILANÓWEK CREAM FUDGE)
Date: 2011-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012032EN.01003801.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/38





Action brought on 30 November 2011 — PICO Food v OHIM — Sobieraj (MILANÓWEK CREAM FUDGE)
(Case T-623/11)
2012/C 32/75
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: PICO Food GmbH (Tamm, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bogumit Sobieraj (Milanówek, Poland)

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 8 September 2011 in case R 553/2010-1;










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MILANÓWEK CREAM FUDGE’, for goods in class 30 — Community trade mark application No 6342455

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark registration No 30522224 of the figurative mark representing a cow, for goods in class 30; German trade mark registration No 30523439 of the figurative mark ‘Original Sahne Muh-Muhs HANDGESCHNITTEN HANDGEWICKELT’, for goods in class 30; German trade mark registration No 30702751 of the figurative mark ‘Original Sahne Muh-Muhs HANDGESCHNITTEN HANDGEWICKELT’, for goods in class 30; German trade mark registration No 30702748 of the figurative mark ‘Original Sahne Muh-Muhs HANDGESCHNITTEN HANDGEWICKELT’, for goods in class 30; German trade mark registration No 30700574 of the figurative mark ‘SAHNE TOFFEE LUXURY CREAM FUDGE’, for goods in class 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition 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 misinterpreted the general principles laid down by the European Courts and denied the existence of likelihood of confusion between the opposition trademarks and the contested application. Infringement of Article 76(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal based the decision on facts which have not been forwarded by the parties to the proceedings.