do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-424/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2012 — Dosenbach-Ochsner v OHIM — Sisma (Representation of elephants in a rectangle) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark representing elephants in a rectangle — Earlier international and national figurative marks representing an elephant and earlier national word mark elefanten — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Distinctive character of the earlier marks)
Date: 2012-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2012080EN.01001703.xml










17.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/17





Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2012 — Dosenbach-Ochsner v OHIM — Sisma (Representation of elephants in a rectangle)
(Case T-424/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark representing elephants in a rectangle - Earlier international and national figurative marks representing an elephant and earlier national word mark elefanten - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distinctive character of the earlier marks)
2012/C 80/28
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Dosenbach-Ochsner AG Schuhe und Sport (Dietikon, Switzerland) (represented by: O. Rauscher, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Mannucci, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Sisma SpA (Mantova, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2010 (Case R 1638/2008-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Dosenbach-Ochsner AG Schuhe und Sport and Sisma SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The General 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 15 July 2010 (Case R 1638/2008-4);










2.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Dosenbach-Ochsner AG Schuhe und Sport;










3.


Orders Sisma SpA to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
Case C-63/12: Action brought on 7 February 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
Date: 2012-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European civil service, infringement of EU law, regulations for civil servants, remuneration of work








C_2012118EN.01001402.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/14





Action brought on 7 February 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
(Case C-63/12)
2012/C 118/22
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, J.-P. Keppenne and D. Martin, agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


annul Council Decision 2011/866/EU of 19 December 2011 concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting with effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto; (1)











—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission raises two grounds of complaint in relation to Annex XI to the Staff Regulations.
The first ground of complaint concerns the Council’s refusal to adopt the adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants, as proposed by the Commission on 24 November 2011, thereby infringing the method governing that adjustment for a period of eight years ending on 31 December 2012. By that ground of complaint, the Commission’s primary plea in law claims that the Council has misused its power and exceeded the limits of that power, and its alternative plea in law is that the Council has infringed the conditions for the application of Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations. The primary plea in law concerns the fact that the Council has in fact itself applied Article 10, but in breach of the required institutional conditions; the Council has thereby infringed, first, Article 65 of the Staff Regulations and, second, Articles 3 and 10 of Annex XI. By the alternative plea in law, the Commission argues that, in any event, the substantive conditions for the application of Article 10 were not met in 2011, as is clear moreover from the two economic reports which the Commission submitted to the Council at the latter’s request. The Commission also considers that Council failed properly to state reasons for its decision.
The second ground of complaint concerns the Council’s refusal to adjust the correction coefficients which must be applied to the remuneration and pensions, according to the various places of employment or residence of the persons concerned. The first plea in law within that complaint is that that refusal is contrary to Article 64 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1 and 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations. The Commission’s second plea in law is that that refusal lacks any statement of reasons, contrary to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.


(1)  OJ 2011 L 341, p.54
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6464 — Sony/Sony Ericsson)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, merger control, mobile phone








C_2012033EN.01000401.xml










7.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 33/4





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6464 — Sony/Sony Ericsson)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 33/04
On 26 January 2012, 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 32012M6464. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6491 — Kubota/Kverneland) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, tractor








C_2012033EN.01001201.xml










7.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 33/12





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6491 — Kubota/Kverneland)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 33/09






1.


On 30 January 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Kubota Corporation (‘Kubota’, Japan) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation indirect sole control of the whole of Kverneland ASA (‘Kverneland’, Norway) by way of public bid.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Kubota: development, production and distribution of farm and industrial machinery, water and environment systems as well as social infrastructures,










—


for Kverneland: development, production and distribution of tractor implements and attachments for the farming industry.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6491 — Kubota/Kverneland, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).