do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-266/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 May 2012 by Jarosław Majtczak against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2012 in Case T-227/09: Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2012-05-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, EU trade mark, Ghana, dictionary of abbreviations, product designation, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012258EN.01001001.xml










25.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/10





Appeal brought on 29 May 2012 by Jarosław Majtczak against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2012 in Case T-227/09: Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-266/12 P)
2012/C 258/16
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Jarosław Majtczak (represented by: J. Radłowski, radca prawny)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd

Form of order sought

By the present appeal the appellant asks the Court of Justice to:






—


annul in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 in case T-227/09 and dismiss the applicant's suit or in the alternative;










—


annul in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 in case T-227/09 and refer the case back to the General Court;










—


adjudicate the costs in favour of the appellant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment infringes article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) on the Community trade mark, as amended (replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2) (on the Community trade mark), particularly with regard to the General Court's interpretation of the concept of ‘acting in bad faith’.
The appellant also submits that the General Court has breached procedure by making erroneous findings of fact and by being selective in its assessment of the evidence produced.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark
OJ L 11, p. 1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version)
OJ L 78, p. 1
Case T-232/12: Action brought on 29 may 2012 — Wilmar Trading v OHIM — Agroekola EOOD (ULTRA CHOCO)
Date: 2012-05-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, agri-foodstuffs, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012243EN.01002102.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/21





Action brought on 29 may 2012 — Wilmar Trading v OHIM — Agroekola EOOD (ULTRA CHOCO)
(Case T-232/12)
2012/C 243/39
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: E. Miller, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Agroekola EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

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 March 2012 in case R 87/2012-1;










—


Order OHIM to consider the appeal filed against the decision of the Opposition Division of 10 November 2011 on opposition No B001760043 and to process in the normal course.





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 word mark ‘ULTRA CHOCO’, for goods in classes 29, 30 and 31 — Community trade mark application No 9221111

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Singaporean trade mark registration T0113987B of the word mark ‘ultra choco’ for goods in class 29; European and Bulgarian non-registered trade mark ‘ULTRA CHOCO’, invoking Articles 8(3) and 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Deemed the appeal not to have been filed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(3)(a)(ii) and (b) and 8(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 of 13 December 1995 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).
Case T-226/12: Action brought on 29 May 2012 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — LĺDL MUSIC (LIDL)
Date: 2012-05-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, supermarket, trade-mark law








C_2012227EN.01002601.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/26





Action brought on 29 May 2012 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — LĺDL MUSIC (LIDL)
(Case T-226/12)
2012/C 227/44
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Schaeffer, M. Wolter and A. Marx, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LĺDL MUSIC, spol. s r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic)

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 21 March 2012 (R 2380/2010-1);










—


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 ‘LIDL’ for goods in class 15 — Community trade mark application No 6 861 025

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: National figurative mark and community word mark ‘LÍDL MUSIC’ for goods in class 15

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 15(1) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) and (4) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95;










—


Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-236/12: Action brought on 29 May 2012 — Airbus v OHIM (NEO)
Date: 2012-05-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aeronautical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012243EN.01002401.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/24





Action brought on 29 May 2012 — Airbus v OHIM (NEO)
(Case T-236/12)
2012/C 243/42
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Airbus SAS (France) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

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 23 February 2012 in case R 1387/2011-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NEO’ for goods and services in classes 7, 12, and 39 — Community trade mark application No 9624974

Decision of the Examiner: Partially refused to register the community trade mark application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Articles 64(1) and 59 of Council Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and










—


Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-265/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 29 May 2012 — Citroën Belux NV v Federatie voor Verzekerings- en Financiële Tussenpersonen (FvF)
Date: 2012-05-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, financial services, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, tied sales outlet








C_2012258EN.01000901.xml










25.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/9





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 29 May 2012 — Citroën Belux NV v Federatie voor Verzekerings- en Financiële Tussenpersonen (FvF)
(Case C-265/12)
2012/C 258/15
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Citroën Belux NV

Respondent: Federatie voor Verzekerings- en Financiële Tussenpersonen (FvF)

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 3(9) of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding a provision, such as Article 72 WMPC, (2) which — subject to the cases which are exhaustively listed in the law — generally prohibits any combined offer to the consumer as soon as at least one component is a financial service?










2.


Must Article 56 TFEU, concerning the freedom to provide services, be interpreted as precluding a provision, such as Article 72 WMPC, which — subject to the cases which are exhaustively listed in the law — generally prohibits any combined offer to the consumer as soon as at least one component is a financial service?






(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

(2)  Wet betreffende marktpraktijken en consumentenbescherming (Belgian Law on Market Practices and Consumer Protection).
Case T-235/12: Action brought on 29 May 2012 — CEDC International v OHIM — Underberg (Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle)
Date: 2012-05-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012243EN.01002301.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/23





Action brought on 29 May 2012 — CEDC International v OHIM — Underberg (Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle)
(Case T-235/12)
2012/C 243/41
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Underberg AG (Dietlikon, Suisse)

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 26 March 2012 in case R 2506/2010-4;










—


Order OHIM to bear the costs of the proceedings at hand.





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 with the description ‘the object of the trade mark is a greeny-brown blade of grass in a bottle, the length of the blade of grass is approximately three-quarters the height of the bottle’, for goods in class 33 — Community trade mark application No 33266

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark registration No 95588457 of the three-dimensional mark representing a bottle with a strand of grass for goods in class 33; German trade mark registration No 39848553; Polish trade mark registration No 62018; Polish trade mark registration No 62081 for goods in class 33; Polish trade mark registration No 85811 for goods in class 33; Japanese trade mark registration No 2092826 for goods in class 28; French trade mark registration No 98746752 of the three-dimensional mark representing a bottle with a strand of grass for goods in class 33; Non-registered trade mark used in the course of trade in Germany in connection with ‘vodka’

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 the principle of legality;










—


Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 and consequently also Articles 8(1)(a), 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-225/12: Action brought on 29 May 2012 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — LĺDL MUSIC (LIDL express)
Date: 2012-05-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, supermarket, trade-mark law








C_2012227EN.01002502.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/25





Action brought on 29 May 2012 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — LĺDL MUSIC (LIDL express)
(Case T-225/12)
2012/C 227/43
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Schaeffer, M. Wolter and A. Marx, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LĺDL MUSIC, spol. s r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic)

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 21 March 2012 (R 2379/2010-1);










—


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 ‘LIDL express’ for goods in class 15 — Community trade mark application No 6 857 536

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: National figurative mark and community word mark ‘LÍDL MUSIC’ for goods in class 15

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 15(1) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) and (4) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95;










—


Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-262/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 May 2012 — Association Vent De Colère! Fédération nationale, Alain Bruguier, Jean-Pierre Le Gorgeu, Marie-Christine Piot, Eric Errec, Didier Wirth, Daniel Steinbach, Sabine Servan-Schreiber, Philippe Rusch, Pierre Recher, Jean-Louis Moret, Didier Jocteur Monrozier v Ministre de l’écologie, du développement durable, des transports et du logement, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie
Date: 2012-05-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: control of State aid, energy industry, excise duty, wind energy








C_2012243EN.01000801.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/8





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 May 2012 — Association Vent De Colère! Fédération nationale, Alain Bruguier, Jean-Pierre Le Gorgeu, Marie-Christine Piot, Eric Errec, Didier Wirth, Daniel Steinbach, Sabine Servan-Schreiber, Philippe Rusch, Pierre Recher, Jean-Louis Moret, Didier Jocteur Monrozier v Ministre de l’écologie, du développement durable, des transports et du logement, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie
(Case C-262/12)
2012/C 243/14
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Association Vent De Colère! Fédération nationale, Alain Bruguier, Jean-Pierre Le Gorgeu, Marie-Christine Piot, Eric Errec, Didier Wirth, Daniel Steinbach, Sabine Servan-Schreiber, Philippe Rusch, Pierre Recher, Jean-Louis Moret, Didier Jocteur Monrozier

Defendants: Ministre de l’écologie, du développement durable, des transports et du logement, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie

Question referred

In the light of the change in the mechanism for financing in full the additional costs imposed on Électricité de France and the non-nationalised distributors referred to in Article 23 of Law No 46-628 of 8 April 1946 on the nationalisation of electricity and gas by the obligation to purchase at higher than market price the electricity generated by wind-power installations, as a result of Law No 2003-8 of 3 January 2003, must that mechanism now be regarded as an intervention by the State or through State resources within the meaning, and for the application, of Article 87 EC?
Case C-261/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 May 2012 by Annunziata Del Prete against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 27 March 2012 in Case T-420/10 Girogio Armani v OHIM
Date: 2012-05-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012227EN.01001401.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/14





Appeal brought on 29 May 2012 by Annunziata Del Prete against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 27 March 2012 in Case T-420/10 Girogio Armani v OHIM
(Case C-261/12 P)
2012/C 227/20
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Annunziata Del Prete (represented by: R. Bocchini, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Girogio Armani SpA, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought







—


Set aside in full the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 March 2012 and, accordingly, uphold the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM delivered on 8 July 2010 and notified on 19 July 2010, on the ground that the latter fully complied with and applied the rules laid down in the Regulation on the Community trade mark, (1) in particular Article 8(1)(b) thereof, the only provision relied on in Opposition No B1309485.










—


Order the other parties to the proceedings to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


It is disputed that there is graphic similarity between Community trade mark No 6314462 ‘AMICI JUNIOR’ and Italian national figurative mark Nos 912114 ‘AJ ARMANI JEANS’ and 998554 ‘ARMANI JUNIOR’, or any aural similarity.










2.


Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 and the princple that marks must be well known were applied in the judgment under appeal, even though Girogio Armani S.p.A. did not make any express reference to or rely on that provision or princple.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case T-243/12: Action brought on 29 May 2012 — International Brands Germany v OHIM — Stuffer (ALOHA 100 % NATURAL)
Date: 2012-05-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012217EN.01002801.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/28





Action brought on 29 May 2012 — International Brands Germany v OHIM — Stuffer (ALOHA 100 % NATURAL)
(Case T-243/12)
2012/C 217/58
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: International Brands Germany GmbH & Co. KG (Paderborn, Germany) (represented by: B. Hein and M. Hoffmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stuffer SpA (Bolzano, Italy)

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 14 March 2012 in case R 1058/2011-1 and reject the opposition;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: International Brands Germany GmbH & Co. KG

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘ALOHA 100 % NATURAL’ for goods in Class 32 — application No 7 050 701

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Stuffer SpA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘ALOA’ for goods in Class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009