do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-1/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 3 January 2012 — Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas v Autoridade da Concorrência
Date: 2012-01-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law, offence








C_2012089EN.01001201.xml










24.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 3 January 2012 — Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas v Autoridade da Concorrência
(Case C-1/12)
2012/C 89/18
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas

Defendant: Autoridade da Concorrência

Questions referred







1.


Must an institution such as the Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas (OTOC) be regarded in its entirety as an association of undertakings for the purposes of applying the Community competition law rules (training market)? If so, is the present Article 101(2) TFEU to be interpreted as also rendering subject to those rules an entity which, like the OTOC, lays down binding rules of general application and does so in compliance with legal requirements concerning mandatory training of chartered accountants with a view to providing citizens with a quality service that can be relied on?










2.


If an entity such as the OTOC is required by law to implement a mandatory training system for its members, may the present Article 101 TFEU be interpreted as allowing the possibility of challenging the setting up of a training system legally imposed by the OTOC and by the Regulation governing that system, in so far as the latter strictly confines itself to giving effect to the legal requirement? Or, on the contrary, does this matter fall outside the scope of Article 101 and must it be examined under the present Article 56 et seq. TFEU?










3.


Having regard to the fact that the Wouters
 (1) judgment, and similar judgments, were concerned with rules having an impact on the economic activity of the professional members of the professional association in question, do Articles 101 and 102 TFEU preclude rules on the training of chartered accountants which have no direct influence on their economic activity?










4.


In the light of Union competition law (in the training market), may a professional association impose the requirement, for the practice of the profession, of particular training provided only by it?






(1)  Case C-309/99 Wouters [2002] ECR I-1577
Case T-4/12: Action brought on 3 January 2012 — Olive Line International v OHIM — Carapelli Firenze (Maestro de Oliva)
Date: 2012-01-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, olive oil, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012089EN.01002404.xml










24.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/24





Action brought on 3 January 2012 — Olive Line International v OHIM — Carapelli Firenze (Maestro de Oliva)
(Case T-4/12)
2012/C 89/42
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Olive Line International, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carapelli Firenze SpA (Tavarnelle Val di Pesa (Florence), Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and find that the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 September 2011 in Case R 1612/2010-2 is inconsistent with Council Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (now Regulation No 297/2009), in so far as that decision annulled the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 20 July 2010 in opposition proceedings No B 1344995, and rejected the application to register as a Community trade mark international mark No 938.133 for part of the goods in Classes 29 and 30 in respect of which registration was sought;










—


order the defendant, and where appropriate the intervener, to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the opposition and appeal proceedings before OHIM.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark with the word element ‘Maestro de Oliva’ for goods in Classes 29 and 30

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Carapelli Firenze SPA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: national word mark ‘MAESTRO’ for goods in Classes 29 and 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal upheld and application rejected in relation to part of the goods in respect of which registration was sought

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) and related articles of Regulation No 207/2009, since the use made by the defendant of the opposing mark constitutes a deliberate change in the original concept of the mark represented by the opposing mark and, therefore, substantially alters the distinctive character of the mark ‘MAESTRO’, and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks.
Case C-6/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 3 January 2012 — P Oy
Date: 2012-01-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: financial loss, tax avoidance, tax relief








C_2012058EN.01000602.xml










25.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/6





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 3 January 2012 — P Oy
(Case C-6/12)
2012/C 58/09
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: P Oy

Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Questions referred







1.


In the context of an authorisation procedure, such as that in Paragraph 122(3) of the Law on income tax, must the criterion of selectivity in Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as precluding the authorisation of the deduction of losses in the case of changes of ownership if the procedure referred to in the last sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU is not observed?










2.


In the interpretation of the criterion of selectivity, in particular in order to determine the reference group, is it necessary to take into account the general rule on the deductibility of established losses in Paragraphs 117 and 118 of the Law on income tax or the provisions concerning changes of ownership?










3.


If the criterion of selectivity in Article 107 TFEU is a priori regarded as being fulfilled, may the system resulting from Paragraph 122(3) of the Law on income tax be regarded as justified by the fact that it is a mechanism inherent in the tax system itself which is necessary for example in order to prevent tax evasion?










4.


When assessing possible justification and whether the system is a mechanism inherent in the tax system, what importance must be given to the extent of the discretion of the tax authorities? Is it necessary, as regards the mechanism inherent in the tax system itself, that the body applying the law has no discretion and that the conditions for the application of the derogation are set out precisely in the legislation?
Case C-2/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 January 2012 — Trianon Productie BV, other party: Revillon Chocolatier SAS
Date: 2012-01-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, registration tax, trade-mark law








C_2012098EN.01001003.xml










31.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 January 2012 — Trianon Productie BV, other party: Revillon Chocolatier SAS
(Case C-2/12)
2012/C 98/15
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Trianon Productie BV

Respondent: Revillon Chocolatier SAS

Questions referred







1.


As regards the grounds for refusal or invalidity in Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 89/104/EEC, (1) as codified in Directive 2008/95 (2) — according to which (shape) marks cannot consist exclusively of a shape which gives a substantial value to the goods — do these concern the reason (or reasons) for the purchasing decision of the relevant public?










2.


Is a shape a ‘shape which gives substantial value to the goods’ within the meaning of the provision referred to above






(a)


only if that shape must be regarded as the main or overriding value in comparison with other values (such as, in the case of foods, their taste or substance); or










(b)


also where the goods have other values, which must be regarded as equally substantial, in addition to that main or overriding value?














3.


Is the answer to Question 2 to be determined on the basis of the view of the majority of the target public, or can the courts rule that the view of just part of that public is sufficient for the value concerned to be deemed ‘substantial’ within the meaning of the provision referred to above?










4.


In so far as the answer to Question 3 falls to be answered as indicated in the latter part of that question, what requirement is to be applied as regards the size of the relevant part of the public?






(1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).

(2)  OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.