do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6580 — Experian/Cerved/Experian-Cerved Information Services) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, merger control








C_2012140EN.01000301.xml










16.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 140/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6580 — Experian/Cerved/Experian-Cerved Information Services)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 140/03






1.


On 7 May 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Experian Holding Italia Srl (‘Experian’, Italy) and Cerved Holding SpA (‘Cerved’), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Experian-Cerved Information Services SpA (‘Experian-Cerved’, Italy) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Experian: credit bureau services; collection and marketing of business information collected from publicly available sources; software solutions and marketing services for data management, credit risk assessment, credit collection and fraud management; pedestrian counting-centric business information solutions used to monitor the customers behaviours,










—


Cerved: collection, processing and marketing of information services used to support organisations in managing credit risk, assessing credit worthiness, creating target lists for marketing purposes and studying market positioning; credit evaluation, credit management and asset management; credit collection,










—


Experian-Cerved: credit bureau services.














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.6580 — Experian/Cerved/Experian-Cerved Information Services, 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’).
Case T-444/09: Order of the General Court of 16 May 2012 — La City v OHIM — Bücheler and Ewert (citydogs) (Community trade mark — Appointment of a new representative — Applicant’s failure to act — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, footwear industry, pulp and paper industry, trade-mark law








C_2012209EN.01000702.xml










14.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/7





Order of the General Court of 16 May 2012 — La City v OHIM — Bücheler and Ewert (citydogs)
(Case T-444/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Appointment of a new representative - Applicant’s failure to act - No need to adjudicate)
2012/C 209/11
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: La City (La Courneuve, France) (represented initially by: S. Bénoliel-Claux, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: S. Schäffner and R. Pethke, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Andreas Bücheler and Konstanze Ewert (Engelskirchen, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2009 (Case R 233/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between (1) La City and (2) Mr Andreas Bücheler and Ms Konstanze Ewert.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.










2.


La City, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Mr Andreas Bücheler and Ms Konstanze Ewert shall each bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 435/2012 of 16 May 2012 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Φασόλια Βανίλιες Φενεού (Fasolia Vanilies Feneou) (PGI))
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Greece, designation of origin, leguminous vegetable, product designation








L_2012134EN.01000801.xml










24.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 134/8








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 435/2012
of 16 May 2012
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Φασόλια Βανίλιες Φενεού (Fasolia Vanilies Feneou) (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Greece’s application to register the name ‘Φασόλια Βανίλιες Φενεού (Fasolia Vanilies Feneou)’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 May 2012.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Dacian CIOLOȘ
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ C 273, 16.9.2011, p. 26.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6:   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

GREECE
Φασόλια Βανίλιες Φενεού (Fasolia Vanilies Feneou) (PGI)
Case C-252/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 16 May 2012 — Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd, Specsavers BV, Specsavers Optical Group Ltd, Specsavers Optical Superstores Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, United Kingdom, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012227EN.01001301.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/13





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 16 May 2012 — Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd, Specsavers BV, Specsavers Optical Group Ltd, Specsavers Optical Superstores Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd
(Case C-252/12)
2012/C 227/18
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd, Specsavers BV, Specsavers Optical Group Ltd, Specsavers Optical Superstores Ltd

Defendants: Asda Stores Ltd

Questions referred







1.


Where a trader has separate registrations of Community trade marks for






(i)


a graphic device mark;










(ii)


a word mark;




and uses the two together, is such use capable of amounting to use of the graphic device mark for the purposes of Articles 15 and 51 of Regulation 207/2009? (1) If yes, how is the question of use of the graphic mark to be assessed?










2.


Does it make a difference if:






(i)


the word mark is superimposed over the graphic device?










(ii)


the trader also has the combined mark comprising graphic device and word mark registered as a Community trade mark?














3.


Does the answer to A or B depend upon whether the graphic device and the words are perceived by the average consumer as (i) being separate signs; or (ii) each having an independent distinctive role? If so, how?










4.


Where a Community trade mark is not registered in colour, but the proprietor has used it extensively in a particular colour or combination of colours such that it has become associated in the mind of a significant portion of the public (in a part but not the whole of the Community) with that colour or combination of colours, is the colour or colours with which the defendant uses the sign complained of relevant in the global assessment of (i) likelihood of confusion under Article 9(1)(b) or (ii) unfair advantage under Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation 207/2009? If so, how?










5.


If so, is it relevant as part of the global assessment that the defendant itself is associated in the mind of a significant portion of the public with the colour or particular combination of colours which it is using for the sign complained of?






(1)  OJ L 78, p. 1
Case C-245/12: Action brought on 16 May 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EC Directive, coastal protection, marine environment, national implementing measure








C_2012200EN.01000802.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/8





Action brought on 16 May 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-245/12)
2012/C 200/15
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, B. Simon and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by not bringing into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), (1) or in any event by not notifying the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(1) of that directive;










—


impose on the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a periodic penalty payment for failure to meet its obligation to notify transposition of Directive 2008/56/EC at a daily rate of 93 492 EUR calculated from the day on which judgment in the present case is delivered;










—


order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which Directive 2008/56/EC had to be transposed expired on 15 July 2010.


(1)  OJ 2008 L 164, p. 19.
Case T-203/12: Action brought on 16 May 2012 — Alchaar v Council
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, fundamental rights, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2012217EN.01002403.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/24





Action brought on 16 May 2012 — Alchaar v Council
(Case T-203/12)
2012/C 217/52
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mohamad Nedal Alchaar (Alep, Syria) (represented by: A. Korkmaz, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul, as far as those acts concern the applicant:






—


Implementing Regulation No 1244/2011 of 1 December 2011;










—


Decision No 2011/782/CFSP as amended and supplemented up to now, in particular by implementing Decision No 2012/37/CFSP, Decision 2012/122/CFSP, Implementing Decision 2012/172/CFSP and Decision 2012/206/CFSP;










—


Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 as amended and supplemented up to now, in particular by Implementing Regulation No 55/2012, Regulation No 168/2012 and Implementing Regulation No 266/2012










—


All future acts amending or supplementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP and Council Regulation No 36/2012














—


annul the Council’s decision in its letter of 16 March 2012 addressed to the applicant, in so far as it maintains his inclusion on the contested lists;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of fundamental rights and procedural guarantees, in particular rights, the duty to state reasons and the principle of effective judicial protection, in so far as the applicant did not receive formal notification of his inclusion on the list of persons sanctioned and or the grounds for his inclusion in the contested acts and were not sufficient to justify the sanctions.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to property and economic freedom.
Case T-205/12: Action brought on 16 May 2012 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend)
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2012209EN.01001002.xml










14.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/10





Action brought on 16 May 2012 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend)
(Case T-205/12)
2012/C 209/17
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Villiger Söhne GmbH (Waldshut-Tiengen, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in Case R 387/2011-1;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘LIBERTE american blend’ for goods in Class 34 — application No 7 481 211

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Villiger Söhne GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘LA LIBERTAD’ and the figurative mark ‘La LIBERTAD’ for goods in Classes 14 and 34

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-202/12: Action brought on 16 May 2012 — Al Assad v Council
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, international sanctions








C_2012217EN.01002402.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/24





Action brought on 16 May 2012 — Al Assad v Council
(Case T-202/12)
2012/C 217/51
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Bouchra Al Assad (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Implementing Decision 2012/172/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it refers to Mrs Bouchra (aka Bushra) Al Assad;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs, in accordance with Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law, which are for all essential purposes identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)



(1)  OJ 2011 C 282, p. 30.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 434/2012 of 16 May 2012 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Chelčicko — Lhenické ovoce (PGI))
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: designation of origin, pip fruit, product designation, regions of the Czech Republic, soft fruit, stone fruit








L_2012134EN.01000601.xml










24.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 134/6








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 434/2012
of 16 May 2012
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Chelčicko — Lhenické ovoce (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Czech Republic’s application to register the name ‘Chelčicko – Lhenické ovoce’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 May 2012.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Dacian CIOLOȘ
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ C 271, 14.9.2011, p. 22.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

CZECH REPUBLIC
Chelčicko — Lhenické ovoce (PGI)
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6587 — Molson Coors/StarBev)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beer, economic concentration, merger control








C_2012140EN.01000201.xml










16.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 140/2





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6587 — Molson Coors/StarBev)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 140/02






1.


On 2 May 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Molson Coors Brewing Company (‘Molson Coors’, the US) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Starbev Holdings Sàrl (‘StarBev’, Luxembourg) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Molson Coors: brewing, sale, marketing and distribution of beer primarily in the US, Canada and the UK,










—


for StarBev: manufacture and distribution of beer, active primarily in Central and Eastern Europe.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6587 — Molson Coors/StarBev, 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’).
Case F-42/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2012 — Skareby v Commission (Civil service — Duty to provide assistance — Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment by a hierarchical superior)
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, psychological harassment, senior management








C_2012217EN.01003001.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/30





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2012 — Skareby v Commission
(Case F-42/10) (1)

(Civil service - Duty to provide assistance - Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment by a hierarchical superior)
2012/C 217/62
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant:
Carina Skareby (Louvain, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant:
European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of the defendant’s decision refusing the request for assistance relating to psychological harassment of which the applicant claims to have been a victim.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Skareby to pay, in addition to her own costs, three quarters of the costs of the European Commission;










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay one quarter of its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010, p. 55.