do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-60/11: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Kraft Foods Global Brands v OHIM — fenaco (SUISSE PREMIUM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark SUISSE PREMIUM — Earlier Community figurative mark Premium — Absolute ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Opposition rejected — Article8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012200EN.01001501.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/15





Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Kraft Foods Global Brands v OHIM — fenaco (SUISSE PREMIUM)
(Case T-60/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark SUISSE PREMIUM - Earlier Community figurative mark Premium - Absolute ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Opposition rejected - Article8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 200/29
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC (Northfield, Illinois, United States) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: fenaco Genossenschaft (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2010 (Case R 522/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC and fenaco Genossenschaft.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.
Case T-218/12: Action brought on 22 May 2012 — Micrus Endovascular v OHIM — Laboratorios Delta (DELTA)
Date: 2012-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, research body, trade-mark law








C_2012217EN.01002601.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/26





Action brought on 22 May 2012 — Micrus Endovascular v OHIM — Laboratorios Delta (DELTA)
(Case T-218/12)
2012/C 217/55
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Micrus Endovascular LLC (Wilmington, United States) (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: Laboratorios Delta Lda (Queluz, Portugal)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2012 in case R 244/2011-2; and










—


Order that the respondent pays the applicant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DELTA’, for goods in class 10 — Community trade mark application No 6655906

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 131374 of the figurative mark ‘DELTA PORTUGAL’, for goods in class 5; Portuguese trade mark registration No 140578 of the figurative mark ‘DELTA PORTUGAL’, for goods in class 5; Registered trade name No 23113 ‘LABORATORIOS DELTA’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-211/11: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission
Date: 2012-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to information, animal nutrition, phosphate








C_2012200EN.01002003.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/20





Order of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission
(Case T-211/11) (1)

2012/C 200/42
Language of the case: French
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.
Case C-250/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania), lodged on 22 May 2012 — Călin Ion Plavoșin v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Timiș — Serviciul Soluționare Contestații, Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală — Serviciul de Inspecție Fiscală Timiș
Date: 2012-05-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, real property, sale








C_2012243EN.01000702.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania), lodged on 22 May 2012 — Călin Ion Plavoșin v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Timiș — Serviciul Soluționare Contestații, Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală — Serviciul de Inspecție Fiscală Timiș
(Case C-250/12)
2012/C 243/12
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Călin Ion Plavoșin

Defendants: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Timiș — Serviciul Soluționare Contestații, Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală — Serviciul de Inspecție Fiscală Timiș

Question referred

In the case where a vendor has been reclassified as a taxable person for VAT purposes and the consideration for (price of) the supply of the immovable property has been determined by the parties, without any reference to VAT, must Articles 73 and 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount is:






(a)


the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property determined by the parties, less the rate of VAT, or










(b)


the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property agreed by the parties?






(1)  Council Directive of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-05-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012142EN.01000601.xml










22.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/6





Euro exchange rates (1)

18 May 2012
2012/C 142/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2721




JPY


Japanese yen


100,95




DKK


Danish krone


7,4329




GBP


Pound sterling


0,8042




SEK


Swedish krona


9,0996




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2012




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,5975




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,333




HUF


Hungarian forint


297,25




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6973




PLN


Polish zloty


4,336




RON


Romanian leu


4,4435




TRY


Turkish lira


2,327




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2879




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2939




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,8782




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6741




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6195




KRW


South Korean won


1 487,92




ZAR


South African rand


10,5295




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0465




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,559




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 909,1




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,988




PHP


Philippine peso


54,833




RUB


Russian rouble


39,6685




THB


Thai baht


39,855




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5376




MXN


Mexican peso


17,4891




INR


Indian rupee


69,288






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-215/12: Action brought on 22 May 2012 — MPM-Quality and Eutech v OHIM — Elton hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949)
Date: 2012-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, consumer protection, infringement of EU law, patents licence, proof, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012273EN.01001003.xml










8.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/10





Action brought on 22 May 2012 — MPM-Quality and Eutech v OHIM — Elton hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949)
(Case T-215/12)
2012/C 273/18
Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties


Applicants: MPM-Quality v.o.s. (Frýdek-Místek, Czech Republic) and Eutech akciová společnost (Šternberk, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elton hodinářská, a.s.

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 5 March 2012 in Case R 826/2010-4,










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Composite trade mark ‘MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949’ no 3531662 for goods and services in classes 9, 14 and 35

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Elton hodinářská, a.s.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicants

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Application on the basis of Article 51(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(a) and (b) and Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, and on the basis of Article 52(1)(b) of that regulation

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: The applicants submit that the Board of Appeal infringed Articles 8(1)(a) and (b), 8(5) and 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (‘the Regulation’) in that it:






—


proceeded from an incorrect interpretation of the burden of argument and proof under Articles 54 and 165(4) of the Regulation;










—


incorrectly applied the case-law of the Court of Justice;










—


did not take account of the substantial exploitation, well-known character and use of the international trade mark, which are important for the perception of the sign PRIM by the relevant consumers;










—


incorrectly applied Article 55 in relation to Article 41 of the Regulation by asserting that the earlier rights to the sign must belong to the same owner;










—


did not express a view on the facts put forward by the applicants and the evidence submitted by them, did not accord that evidence its significance, and did not deal at all with some of it (e.g. the licence agreements);










—


did not take account of the fact that similar marks containing the word ‘PRIM’ are already registered in the European Union.