do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-02-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012034EN.01002701.xml










8.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/27





Euro exchange rates (1)

7 February 2012
2012/C 34/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3113




JPY


Japanese yen


100,67




DKK


Danish krone


7,4336




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83020




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8215




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2087




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,6225




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,000




HUF


Hungarian forint


291,66




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6990




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1783




RON


Romanian leu


4,3523




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3076




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2161




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3088




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,1682




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5747




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6370




KRW


South Korean won


1 467,38




ZAR


South African rand


9,9577




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2763




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5750




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 791,87




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9509




PHP


Philippine peso


55,715




RUB


Russian rouble


39,2870




THB


Thai baht


40,611




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2636




MXN


Mexican peso


16,6601




INR


Indian rupee


64,7060






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-51/12: Action brought on 8 February 2012 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)
Date: 2012-02-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2012109EN.01002102.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/21





Action brought on 8 February 2012 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)
(Case T-51/12)
2012/C 109/46
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Scooters India Ltd (Sarojininagar, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brandconcern BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

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 1 December 2011 in case R 2312/2010-1, insofar as the applicant’s appeal against the revocation of the mark in respect of its registration for goods in class 12 was dismissed;










—


Remit the case back to OHIM with a recommendation by the General Court that it find that the mark has been put to genuine use in relation to goods in class 12, namely ‘scooters, parts and fittings for vehicles and apparatus for locomotion by land’; and










—


Order the Defendant to pay the applicant’s costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘LAMBRETTA’, for goods in classes 3, 12, 14, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark registration No 1495100

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partially revoked the CTM registration No 1495100

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division, dismissed the appeal for the remaining goods and dismissed the ancillary appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 50(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly decided to revoke the CTM for all goods in class 12 despite having held that there was evidence of genuine use of an identifiable sub-category of goods in class 12. Further, it erred in law in not applying the authority in the case of Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging (C-40/01) to the effect that use in relation to parts preserves a registration for the goods of which those parts are an integral part.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 of 29 June 2010 on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds for certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds ( OJ L 171, 6.7.2010 )
Date: 2012-02-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural product, cif price, codification of EU law, export (EU), export refund, primary product








L_2012035EN.01001001.xml










8.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 35/10







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 578/2010 of 29 June 2010 on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009 as regards the system of granting export refunds for certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 171 of 6 July 2010
)

On page 17, Article 51(1), point (a):
for:






‘(a)


the amounts, expressed in euros, in respect of which refund certificates were returned during the previous month in accordance with Article 41(1);’,




read:






‘(a)


the amounts, expressed in euro, in respect of which refund certificates were returned during the previous month in accordance with Article 41(1) and (2);’;




on page 17, in Article 51(1), point (c):
for:






‘(c)


refund certificates, expressed in euros, issued during the previous month, as referred to in Article 35;’,




read:






‘(c)


refund certificates, expressed in euro, issued during the previous month, as referred to in Article 36;’.
Information on the date of signature of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique
Date: 2012-02-08
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Mozambique, agreement (EU), financial compensation of an agreement, fishing agreement, fishing rights, protocol to an agreement








L_2012035EN.01000101.xml










8.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 35/1







Information on the date of signature of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique

The European Union and the Government of the Republic of Mozambique signed the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Partnership Agreement in the fisheries sector in Brussels on 1 February 2012.
The Protocol accordingly applies provisionally from 1 February 2012 pursuant to Article 15 thereof.
Passport to the European Union.
Date: 2012-02-08
Institutions: Representation in the United Kingdom
Subjects: EU Member State, European Union, public awareness campaign, young person

The European Union

Danmark

Česká republika

Açores (P)

Deutschland

Nederland

250 km

Reykjavík
Ísland

Madeira (P)

Canarias (E)

Suomi
Finland

Paramaribo

Suriname

Guyane
(F)

Brasil

Guadeloupe
(F)

Martinique
(F)

Réunion (F)

United Kingdom

Belgique
België

Sverige

Sverige

Éire
Ireland

Éire
Ireland

Dublin
Baile Átha Cliath

United
Kingdom

London

Luxembourg

Paris

Norge

Oslo

Stockholm

Danmark
København

Suomi
Finland

Helsinki
Helsingfors

Tallinn
Eesti

Riga

Latvija

Lietuva

Eesti

Rossija

Moskva

Latvija

Nederland
Amsterdam

Bruxelles/Brussel
Belgique
België

Lux.
Luxembourg

Rossija

Berlin

Warszawa

Deutschland

Polska

Praha

Česká republika

Lietuva

Vilnius
Minsk

Belarus

Ukraïna

Kyïv
Slovensko

France

Bern

Liechtenstein

Suisse/Schweiz/
Svizzera

Wien
Österreich
Slovenija

Slovensko
Bratislava

Budapest

Magyarország

Chişinău

Moldova

Polska

Österreich

Ljubljana

Zagreb

Hrvatska

Beograd

Srbija

Bosna i
Herzegovina
Sarajevo
Crna Gora
Podgorica
Tiranë

Kosovo
UNSCR 1244

Prishtina

România

Bucureşti

Bălgarija

Soﬁja

România

Portugal

Lisboa

Madrid

Andorra

España

Monaco

San Marino

Italia

Città del 
Vaticano

Roma

Rabat

El Maghreb

Portugal

Alger

El Djazâir

Valletta

Malta

Tunis

Tounis

Italia

Skopie

P.J.R.M.

Bălgarija

Shqipëria

Ελλάδα
Elláda

Αθήναι
Athinai

Magyarország

Ankara

Türkiye

Λευκωσία
Lefkosia
Lefkosa

Souriya

Libnan

Beyrouth

Dimashq

Κύπρος
Kypros
Kibris

Ελλάδα
Elláda

Κύπρος
Kypros
Kibris

España

France

Malta

Slovenija

Accession dates:

1952, 1957

1973

1981

1986

1995

2004

2007

Candidate countries

Untitled-7   1

13/03/09   08:37
Case F-23/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 8 February 2012 — AY v Council (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2010 promotion exercise — Consideration of comparative merits — Failure to take into account further training and certification — Error of law)
Date: 2012-02-08
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: assistant, promotion, staff assessment








C_2012126EN.01002602.xml










28.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 126/26





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 8 February 2012 — AY v Council
(Case F-23/11) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2010 promotion exercise - Consideration of comparative merits - Failure to take into account further training and certification - Error of law)
2012/C 126/49
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: AY (Bousval, Belgium) (represented initially by É. Boigelot and S. Woog, then by É. Boigelot, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Council not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted to grade AST 9 in the 2010 promotion exercise and compensation for the non-material harm suffered.

Operative part of the order

The Tribunal:






1.


annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union not to promote AY to grade AST 9 in the 2010 promotion exercise;










2.


declares that there is no need to adjudicate on AY’s alternative heads of claim;










3.


dismisses AY’s action as to the remainder;










4.


orders the Council of the European Union to pay all costs.






(1)  OJ 30.7.2011 C 226, p. 31.
Case C-64/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 8 February 2012 — A. Schlecker, trading under the name, ‘Firma Anton Schlecker’ , other party: M.J. Boedeker
Date: 2012-02-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, private international law, third country, work contract








C_2012126EN.01000501.xml










28.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 126/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 8 February 2012 — A. Schlecker, trading under the name, ‘Firma Anton Schlecker’, other party: M.J. Boedeker
(Case C-64/12)
2012/C 126/09
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A. Schlecker, trading under the name, ‘Firma Anton Schlecker’

Defendant: M.J. Boedeker

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 6(2) (1) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations be interpreted in such a way that, if an employee carries out the work in performance of the contract not only habitually but also for a lengthy period and without interruption in the same country, the law of that country should be applied in all cases, even if all other circumstances point to a close connection between the employment contract and another country?










2.


Does an affirmative answer to Question 1 require that the employer and the employee, when concluding the contract of employment, or at least at the commencement of the work, intended, or at least were aware of the fact, that the work would be carried out over a long period and without interruption in the same country?






(1)  Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1).
Case F-17/12: Action brought on 8 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-02-08
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, health expenditure, illness, indemnification, redemption








C_2012138EN.01003303.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/33






Action brought on 8 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-17/12)
(2012/C 138/77)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for an order that the Commission pay compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have sustained as a result of the excessive duration of the procedure for recognising the serious nature of the illness from which he suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, by which the Commission rejected the request of 23 November 2010 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority;










—


Annul the note of 24 January 2011, bearing in the top right-hand corner the reference ‘Ref Ares (2011) 74616 — 24.11.2011’, issued by the Commission;










—


In so far as necessary, annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the note of 24 January 2011;










—


In so far as necessary, annul the note of 23 September 2011, bearing in the top right hand corner the reference ‘Ref Ares (2011) 1010393 — 23.09.2011’;










—


In so far as necessary, confirm that the procedure instigated following the application for recognition of the applicant’s right, under Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, to 100 % reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him continued for more than five years;










—


In so far as necessary, declare that the duration of the procedure in question has exceeded what could be deemed reasonable;










—


Accordingly, order the Commission to make reparation for the damage unjustly suffered to date by the applicant on account of the unreasonable duration of the procedure in question by paying to him the sum of EUR 10 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be just and fair;










—


Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, from the day following that on which the request of 23 November 2010 was received by the Commission until actual payment of the sum of EUR 10 000, interest on that sum, with annual capitalisation, at the rate of 10 % per annum;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-55/12: Action brought on 8 February 2012 — Chen v OHIM — AM Denmark (Cleaning devices)
Date: 2012-02-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012133EN.01002701.xml










5.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/27





Action brought on 8 February 2012 — Chen v OHIM — AM Denmark (Cleaning devices)
(Case T-55/12)
2012/C 133/53
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Su-Shan Chen (Sanchong, Taiwan) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AM Denmark A/S (Kokkedal, Denmark)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 October 2011 in case R 2179/2010-3; and










—


Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for the product ‘cleaning devices’ — registered Community design No 1027718-0001

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal requested the invalidation of the RCD based on Articles 4 to 9 and Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation No 6/2002; three-dimensional Community trade mark registration No 5185079, for goods in classes 3 and 21

Decision of the Invalidity Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation No 6/2002, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that the earlier Community trade mark was used in the contested Community design. Besides, the Board of Appeal did not have to presume that the earlier trade mark possessed at least a minimum degree of distinctiveness necessary for its registrability. Infringement of Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal did not correctly apply this Article. Indeed, contrary to the view taken by OHIM, Article 9(1)(b) CTMR does not confer on other party before the OHIM the right to prohibit the use of the contested Community design, as there is no likelihood of confusion. In particular, the applicant’s Community design and the trade mark of the other party are not so similar as to account for a likelihood of confusion.
Case C-191/11 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2012 — Yorma’s AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark with the word element ‘yorma’s’ — Earlier Community word mark NORMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion)
Date: 2012-02-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, Germany, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012133EN.01001101.xml










5.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/11





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2012 — Yorma’s AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-191/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark with the word element ‘yorma’s’ - Earlier Community word mark NORMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion)
2012/C 133/19
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Yorma’s AG (represented by: A. Weiß, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: A. Parr, Rechtsanwältin)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 February 2011 in Case T-213/09 Yorma’s v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (YORMA’S) dismissing the application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 February 2009 refusing registration of the figurative sign with the word element ‘yorma’s’ as a Community trade mark for certain services in Classes 35 and 42 and upholding the opposition brought by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘NORMA’ — Likelihood of confusion between two marks — Incorrect assessment of the similarity of the marks and services concerned — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Yorma’s AG shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.
Case T-54/12: Action brought on 8 February 2012 — K2 Sports Europe v OHIM — Karhu Sport Iberica (SPORT)
Date: 2012-02-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2012109EN.01002201.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/22





Action brought on 8 February 2012 — K2 Sports Europe v OHIM — Karhu Sport Iberica (SPORT)
(Case T-54/12)
2012/C 109/47
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: K2 Sports Europe GmbH (Penzberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Karhu Sport Iberica, SL (Cordoba, 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 November 2011 in case R 986/2010-4;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.





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 in black and white ‘SPORT’, for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 7490113

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark registration No 302008015437 of the word mark ‘K2 SPORTS’, for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28; International trade mark registration No 982235 of the word mark ‘K2 SPORTS’, for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28

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: (i) did not take into consideration the fact that, as a consequence of the identity in the goods at issue the differences between the marks are attenuated; (ii) made an incorrect assessment of the mark applied for, taking the view that there was no chance that the figurative element might be perceived by the public as a representation of the letter K; (iii) incorrectly presumed that being the word ‘SPORT’ understood in all the relevant territories, it should be omitted in the comparative analysis, (iv) erred in making the comparison of the signs; and (v) there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks even if the word ‘SPORT’ may have a weak distinctive character.
Case C-65/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 8 February 2012 — Leidseplein Beheer B.V. and Others, other parties: Red Bull GmbH and Others
Date: 2012-02-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012126EN.01000502.xml










28.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 126/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 8 February 2012 — Leidseplein Beheer B.V. and Others, other parties: Red Bull GmbH and Others
(Case C-65/12)
2012/C 126/10
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: 






 


Leidseplein Beheer B.V.










 


H.J.M de Vries




Defendants: 






 


Red Bull GmbH










 


Red Bull Nederland B.V.





Question referred

Is Article 5(2) of Directive 89/104/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that there can be due cause within the meaning of that provision also where the sign that is identical or similar to the trade mark with a reputation was already being used in good faith by the third party/parties concerned before that trade mark was filed?


(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).