do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6670 — Bridgepoint/Orlando/Limoni) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-08-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cosmetics industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2012252EN.01000801.xml










22.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6670 — Bridgepoint/Orlando/Limoni)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 252/05






1.


On 14 August 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 European Scents Sàrl (Luxembourg), belonging to Bridgepoint Advisers Group Limited (‘Bridgepoint’, United Kingdom), and OI-Beauty SA (Luxembourg), controlled by Orlando Italy Management SA (‘Orlando’, Luxembourg), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Limoni SpA (‘Limoni’, Italy), previously indirectly solely controlled by Bridgepoint, by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Bridgepoint: private equity investments and funding,










—


for Orlando: private equity investments and funding,










—


for Limoni: retail distribution of perfumes and cosmetic products.














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.6670 — Bridgepoint/Orlando/Limoni, 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’).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-08-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012252EN.01000601.xml










22.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/6





Euro exchange rates (1)

21 August 2012
2012/C 252/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2428




JPY


Japanese yen


98,81




DKK


Danish krone


7,4464




GBP


Pound sterling


0,78835




SEK


Swedish krona


8,2595




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2010




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,3235




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,783




HUF


Hungarian forint


275,18




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6963




PLN


Polish zloty


4,0624




RON


Romanian leu


4,4855




TRY


Turkish lira


2,2334




AUD


Australian dollar


1,1839




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2250




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,6404




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5286




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5536




KRW


South Korean won


1 404,80




ZAR


South African rand


10,2627




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9015




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4660




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 794,58




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,8713




PHP


Philippine peso


52,547




RUB


Russian rouble


39,5400




THB


Thai baht


39,086




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4964




MXN


Mexican peso


16,2143




INR


Indian rupee


68,8450






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6561 — Cytec Industries/Umeco)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-08-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aerospace industry, chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2012252EN.01000101.xml










22.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6561 — Cytec Industries/Umeco)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 252/01
On 16 July 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6561. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-380/12: Action brought on 22 August 2012 — Demon International v OHIM — Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo (DEMON)
Date: 2012-08-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012331EN.01002801.xml










27.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/28






Action brought on 22 August 2012 — Demon International v OHIM — Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo (DEMON)
(Case T-380/12)
(2012/C 331/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Demon International, LC (Orem, United States) (represented by: T. Krüger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo (Thiene (VI), Italy)

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 20 June 2012 in Case R 1845/2011-4;










—


order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the action and of the appeal proceedings R 1845/2011-4.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘Demon’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark No 6 375 398

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Demon International, LC

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: International word mark ‘DEMON’ for goods in Class 28

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application for a declaration of invalidity was granted in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was allowed and the application for a declaration of invalidity dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff ( OJ L 282, 28.10.2011 )
Date: 2012-08-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common customs tariff, export (EU), import (EU), tariff nomenclature, trade statistics








L_2012226EN.01000801.xml










22.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 226/8







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 282 of 28 October 2011
)

On page 374, CN code 5601  2, column 2:
for:


                  ‘Wadding; other articles of wadding’,

read:


                  ‘Wadding of textile materials and articles thereof’;

on page 843, column 1:
for:

               ‘
               2932 29 90 
               ’,
read:

               ‘
               2932 20 90 
               ’;
on page 844, column 1:
for:

               ‘
               2932 29 90 
               ’,
read:

               ‘
               2932 20 90 
               ’.
Case T-377/12: Action brought on 22 August 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM
Date: 2012-08-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, olive oil, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012331EN.01002701.xml










27.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/27






Action brought on 22 August 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM
(Case T-377/12)
(2012/C 331/52)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and É. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Olivar Del Desierto, SL (Almería, 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 22 June 2012 in Case R 135/2011-4;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Olivar Del Desierto, SL.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark comprising the word element ‘OLEOSPA’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 35 and 39 — registration application No 7 268 832.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux word marks ‘SPA’ for goods in Classes 3 and 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and opposition rejected.

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-391/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 22 August 2012 — RLvS Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v Stuttgarter Wochenblatt GmbH
Date: 2012-08-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising malpractice, consumer protection, freedom of the press, interpretation of the law








C_2012343EN.01000701.xml










10.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 22 August 2012 — RLvS Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v Stuttgarter Wochenblatt GmbH
(Case C-391/12)
2012/C 343/08
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: RLvS Verlagsgesellschaft mbH

Respondent on a point of law: Stuttgarter Wochenblatt GmbH

Question referred

Do Article 7(2) and point 11 of Annex I, in conjunction with Articles 4 and 3(5), of the Directive (1) preclude the application of a national provision (in this case, Paragraph 10 of the Landespressegesetz Baden-Württemberg (Law governing the Press of the Land of Baden-Württemberg)) which is intended not only to protect consumers against misleading practices but also to protect the independence of the press and which, in contrast to Article 7(2) and point 11 of Annex I to the Directive, prohibits any publication for remuneration, irrespective of the purpose thereby pursued, if that publication is not identified by the use of the term ‘advertisement’, unless it is already evident from the arrangement and layout of the publication that it is an advertisement?


(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC 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).