do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-347/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — A. Salemink v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Worker employed on gas-drilling platform on the continental shelf adjacent to the Netherlands — Compulsory insurance — Refusal to pay invalidity benefit)
Date: 2012-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, Spain, family benefit, social legislation, social-security harmonisation, worker (EU)








C_2012073EN.01000301.xml










10.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/3





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — A. Salemink v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen
(Case C-347/10) (1)

(Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Worker employed on gas-drilling platform on the continental shelf adjacent to the Netherlands - Compulsory insurance - Refusal to pay invalidity benefit)
2012/C 73/04
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A. Salemink

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Amsterdam — Interpretation of Articles 45 TFEU and 355 TFEU, Article 52 TEU and Titles I and II of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) — National compulsory sickness insurance scheme not applicable to persons who are working on a drilling platform situated on the Netherlands section of the continental shelf for an employer established in the Netherlands and who are resident in the territory of another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, and Article 39 EC must be interpreted as precluding an employee, working on a fixed installation on the continental shelf adjacent to a Member State, from being in a position in which he is not compulsorily insured under national statutory employee insurance in that Member State solely on the ground that he is not resident there but in another Member State.


(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
Case T-249/10: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2012 — Kitzinger v OHIM — Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk and Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (KICO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark KICO — Earlier national figurative mark and Community word mark KIKA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, logistics, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012058EN.01000801.xml










25.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/8





Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2012 — Kitzinger v OHIM — Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk and Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (KICO)
(Case T-249/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark KICO - Earlier national figurative mark and Community word mark KIKA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 58/13
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Kitzinger & Co. (GmbH & Co. KG) (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Kitzinger, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, interveners before the General Court: Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk (Leipzig, Germany) and Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: B. Krause and F. Cordt, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 March 2010 (Case R 1388/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk and Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen and, on the other hand, Kitzinger & Co. (GmbH & Co. KG)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the action;










2.


orders Kitzinger & Co. (GmbH & Co. KG) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.
Case T-25/12: Action brought on 17 January 2012 — 3M Pumps v OHIM — 3M (3M Pumps)
Date: 2012-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pump, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012098EN.01002301.xml










31.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/23





Action brought on 17 January 2012 — 3M Pumps v OHIM — 3M (3M Pumps)
(Case T-25/12)
2012/C 98/38
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: 3M Pumps Srl (Taglio di Po, Italy) (represented by: F. Misuraca, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 3M Company (St. Paul, United States)

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 27 October 2011 in Case R 2406/2010-1.










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: 3M Pumps Srl

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘3M Pumps’, for goods and services in Classes 7, 16 and 38

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: 3M Company

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘3M’, for goods and services in Classes 7, 16 and 38

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-21/12: Action brought on 17 January 2012 — Alfacam and Others v Parliament
Date: 2012-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, multimedia, provision of services, telecommunications








C_2012089EN.01002701.xml










24.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/27





Action brought on 17 January 2012 — Alfacam and Others v Parliament
(Case T-21/12)
2012/C 89/45
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Alfacam (Lint, Belgium); Via Storia (Schiltigheim, France); DB Video Productions (Aartselaar, Belgium); IEC (Rennes, France); and European Broadcast Partners (EUBROPA) (Aartselaar) (represented by: B. Pierart, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision adopted by the European Parliament on 18 November 2011 which awards to the Belgian company WATCH TV S.A. the contract EP/DGCOMM/AV/11/11 lot 1 Provision of video, radio and multimedia services — Services to be provided to the European Parliament in Brussels;










—


accordingly, annul the decision adopted by the European Parliament which did not accept the tender of the first four applicants, acting within the framework of the consortium EUROPEAN BROACAST PARTNERS, that tender ranking second for the contract EP/DGCOMM/AV/11/11 lot 1 Provision of video, radio and multimedia services — Services to be provided to the European Parliament in Brussels;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a sole plea alleging infringement of Article 94 of the Financial Regulation, (1) in so far as the tenderer’s tender contained false declarations, so that that tenderer should have been excluded from the award of the contract.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).
Case T-29/12: Action brought on 17 January 2012 — Bauer v OHIM — BenQ Materials (Daxon)
Date: 2012-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, manufactured goods, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012080EN.01002301.xml










17.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/23





Action brought on 17 January 2012 — Bauer v OHIM — BenQ Materials (Daxon)
(Case T-29/12)
2012/C 80/39
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Erika Bauer (Schaufling, Germany) (represented by: A. Merz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BenQ Materials Corp. (Gueishan Taoyuan, Taiwan)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 November 2011 in Case R 2191/2010-2 in its entirety;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: BenQ Materials Corp.

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Daxon’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 10

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘DALTON’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 18, 25, 35, 41 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.