do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-389/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM — Chang Qing Qing (GUDDY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark GUDDY — Earlier Community word mark GUCCI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Highly distinctive character of the earlier mark by reason of the public’s recognition of that mark — Evidence — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, luxury products industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012258EN.01002002.xml










25.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/20





Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM — Chang Qing Qing (GUDDY)
(Case T-389/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark GUDDY - Earlier Community word mark GUCCI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Highly distinctive character of the earlier mark by reason of the public’s recognition of that mark - Evidence - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
2012/C 258/37
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Guccio Gucci SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Chang Qing Qing (Florence)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2011 (Case R 143/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Guccio Gucci SpA and Mr Chang Qing Qing

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 April 2011 (Case R 143/2010-1) so far as it concerns, first, the goods in Class 9 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and, secondly, the precious stones and precious metals in Class 14 of that agreement;










2.


Orders OHIM to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012204EN.01000201.xml










12.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

11 July 2012
2012/C 204/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2260




JPY


Japanese yen


97,14




DKK


Danish krone


7,4363




GBP


Pound sterling


0,78815




SEK


Swedish krona


8,5384




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2010




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,4745




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,395




HUF


Hungarian forint


288,75




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6962




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1697




RON


Romanian leu


4,5255




TRY


Turkish lira


2,2191




AUD


Australian dollar


1,1953




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2493




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,5070




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5369




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5499




KRW


South Korean won


1 398,56




ZAR


South African rand


10,0655




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7828




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4858




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 558,92




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,8944




PHP


Philippine peso


51,288




RUB


Russian rouble


40,2341




THB


Thai baht


38,864




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4899




MXN


Mexican peso


16,3330




INR


Indian rupee


68,2000






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-79/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Maurizio Giovanardi and Others (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA — Standing of victims in criminal proceedings — Directive 2004/80/EC — Compensation to victims of crime — Liability of a legal person — Compensation in criminal proceedings)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police cooperation, criminal procedure, indemnification, interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, victim








C_2012287EN.01001001.xml










22.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/10





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Maurizio Giovanardi and Others
(Case C-79/11) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA - Standing of victims in criminal proceedings - Directive 2004/80/EC - Compensation to victims of crime - Liability of a legal person - Compensation in criminal proceedings)
2012/C 287/15
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Firenze

Parties in the main proceedings

Maurizio Giovanardi, Andrea Lastini, Filippo Ricci, Vito Piglionica, Massimiliano Pempori, Gezim Lakja, Elettrifer Srl, Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze — Interpretation of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 1) — Interpretation of Article 9 of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15) — Criminal liability of legal persons — Right of a victim of a criminal act to be compensated, in the context of criminal proceedings, by a legal person indirectly liable for the harm suffered

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that, under a system governing the liability of legal persons such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that provision does not preclude a situation in which the victim of a criminal act is not entitled to seek compensation for the harm directly caused by that act in the course of criminal proceedings from the legal person who committed an administrative offence.


(1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6647 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Mitsubishi Electric Corporation/Mitsubishi Elevator (Singapore)) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2012204EN.01004201.xml










12.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/42





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6647 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Mitsubishi Electric Corporation/Mitsubishi Elevator (Singapore))
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 204/06






1.


On 5 July 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 Mitsubishi Corporation (‘MC’, Japan) and Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (‘MELCO’, Japan) acquire within the meaning of the article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Mitsubishi Elevator Singapore Co. Ltd (‘MESP’, Singapore) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


MC is a general trading company active in various industries including energy, metals, machinery, chemicals, food and general merchandise,










—


MELCO is active in in the manufacture and sale of electric and electronic equipment used in energy and electric systems, industrial automation, information and communication systems, electronic devices, and home appliances,










—


MESP is a Singaporean registered company active in the supply, distribution, installation and maintenance of MELCO elevators and escalators in Singapore. Its activities are limited to Singapore.














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.6647 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Mitsubishi Electric Corporation/Mitsubishi Elevator (Singapore), 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-517/10: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers v OHIM — Ozone Laboratories Pharma (HYPOCHOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark HYPOCHOL — Earlier national figurative mark HITRECHOL — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alternative medicine, pharmaceutical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012258EN.01001802.xml










25.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/18





Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers v OHIM — Ozone Laboratories Pharma (HYPOCHOL)
(Case T-517/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark HYPOCHOL - Earlier national figurative mark HITRECHOL - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 258/31
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers GmbH & Co. KG (Pinneberg, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and R. Möller, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ozone Laboratories Pharma SA (București, Romania)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2010 (Case R 1332/2009-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers GmbH & Co. KG and Ozone Laboratories Pharma SA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.
Case C-407/11 P: Order of the Court of 12 July 2012 — Government of Gibraltar v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeal — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region — Inclusion in the list of the site ‘Estrecho oriental’ proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, which is stated to include an area of British Gibraltar territorial waters and an area of the high seas — Action for annulment — Application for partial annulment — Severability — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Gibraltar, Spain, United Kingdom, maritime area, protected area, territorial waters








C_2012366EN.01002001.xml










24.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/20





Order of the Court of 12 July 2012 — Government of Gibraltar v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(Case C-407/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region - Inclusion in the list of the site ‘Estrecho oriental’ proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, which is stated to include an area of British Gibraltar territorial waters and an area of the high seas - Action for annulment - Application for partial annulment - Severability - Rights of the defence)
2012/C 366/33
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Government of Gibraltar (represented by: D. Vaughan QC and M. Llamas, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad and M. Muñoz Pérez, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2011 in Case T-176/09 Government of Gibraltar v Commission, by which that Court declared inadmissible an action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2009/95/EC of 12 December 2008 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a second updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (notified under document number C(2008) 8049) to the extent that the decision adds to the list a site called ‘Estrecho Oriental’ (ES6120032), proposed by Spain, which is stated by the appellant to include an area of British Gibraltar territorial waters and an area of the high seas

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


The Government of Gibraltar shall pay the costs.










3.


The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.
Case T-476/07: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Frontex (Public service contracts — Frontex tendering procedures — Provision of informatics services — Rejection of a tender — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Award criteria — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Frontex, award of contract, computer systems, contractual liability, damages, invitation to tender, provision of services, services contract








C_2012258EN.01001501.xml










25.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/15





Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Frontex
(Case T-476/07) (1)

(Public service contracts - Frontex tendering procedures - Provision of informatics services - Rejection of a tender - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Award criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability)
2012/C 258/23
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) (represented by: S. Vuorensola, acting as Agent, and J. Stuyck and A. M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Re:

First, annulment of Frontex’s decision rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in response to the call for tenders Frontex/OP/47/2007 for the provision of ‘informatics services, hardware, and software licences’ (OJ 2007/S 114-139890) and of the decision to award the contract to a different tenderer and, secondly, a claim for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex), including those reserved by the order of the General Court of 28 October 2008.






(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.
Case C-581/11 P: Order of the Court of 12 July 2012 — Muhamad Mugraby v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Action for a declaration of failure to act — Infringement of fundamental rights and of the Association Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Lebanon — Failure of the Council and of the Commission to take measures against the Republic of Lebanon — Action for damages — Appeal clearly unfounded and clearly inadmissible)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, Lebanon, association agreement (EU), human rights, indemnification, suspension of aid








C_2013009EN.01002401.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/24





Order of the Court of 12 July 2012 — Muhamad Mugraby v Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-581/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for a declaration of failure to act - Infringement of fundamental rights and of the Association Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Lebanon - Failure of the Council and of the Commission to take measures against the Republic of Lebanon - Action for damages - Appeal clearly unfounded and clearly inadmissible)
2013/C 9/39
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Muhamad Mugraby (represented by: S. Delhaye, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2011 in Case T-292/09 Mugraby v Council and Commission dismissing an action for failure to act seeking a declaration that the Council and the Commission unlawfully omitted to take a decision on the then applicant’s request concerning the adoption of measures against Lebanon on account of the alleged violation by the latter of the then applicant’s fundamental rights and of the Association Agreement between the Community and the Republic of Lebanon, and dismissing, moreover, an action seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the then applicant as a result of those Community institutions’ failure to act

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Mr Mugraby shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
Case T-83/12: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Chico’s Brands Investments v OHIM — Artsana (CHICO’S) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012273EN.01001002.xml










8.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/10





Order of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Chico’s Brands Investments v OHIM — Artsana (CHICO’S)
(Case T-83/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
2012/C 273/17
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Chico’s Brands Investments, Inc. (Fort Myers, United States) (represented by: T. Holman, solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Artsana SpA (Grandate, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 October 2011 (Case R 2084/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Artsana SpA and Chico’s Brands Investments, Inc.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Each party is to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
Case T-279/09: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Aiello v OHIM — Cantoni ITC (100 % Capri) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Notification of the opposing party’s pleading before the Board of Appeal — Rules 50(1), 20(2) and 67(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, rights of the defence, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2012258EN.01001602.xml










25.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/16





Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Aiello v OHIM — Cantoni ITC (100 % Capri)
(Case T-279/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Notification of the opposing party’s pleading before the Board of Appeal - Rules 50(1), 20(2) and 67(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rights of the defence)
2012/C 258/26
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Antonino Aiello (Vico Equense, Italy) (represented by: M. Coccia and L. Pardo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Cantoni ITC SpA (Milan, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2009 (Case R 1148/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Cantoni ITC SpA and Antonino Aiello.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 2 April 2009 (Case R 1148/2008-1);










2.


Orders OHIM to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6564 — ARM/Giesecke & Devrient/Gemalto/JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, intellectual property, merger control, paper money








C_2012204EN.01000101.xml










12.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/1





Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6564 — ARM/Giesecke & Devrient/Gemalto/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 204/01
(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)
On 15 June 2012, the European Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration between ARM, Giesecke & Devrient, Gemalto and JV. On 3 July 2012, the notifying party/ies informed the Commission that it/they withdrew its/their notification.