do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6600 — AAEC/Entero/BMC Investments)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial institution, merger control, self-employed person, venture capital








C_2012297EN.01000202.xml










3.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6600 — AAEC/Entero/BMC Investments)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 297/03
On 3 August 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 32012M6600. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-445/12 P: Appeal brought on 3 October 2012 by Rivella International AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2012 in Case T-170/11 Rivella International AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, Germany, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012366EN.01002701.xml










24.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/27





Appeal brought on 3 October 2012 by Rivella International AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2012 in Case T-170/11 Rivella International AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-445/12 P)
2012/C 366/48
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Rivella International AG (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and R. Jacobs, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Baskaya di Baskaya Alim e C. Sas

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court;










—


order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal the appellant challenges the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 concerning an action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 January 2011 (Case R 534/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Rivella International AG and Baskaya di Baskaya Alim e C. Sas.
The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal:
The General Court infringed Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in that it






—


requested proof of genuine use of the mark on which the opposition is based although that mark is not a Community trade mark or an ‘earlier national trade mark’, but the German part of an internationally registered mark;










—


took the view that the question of the territory in which an earlier (internationally) registered mark is used is exhaustively determined by Regulation No 207/2009 and that the national law of Member States to that extent applies only in a supplementary capacity;










—


did not take into account the fact that such an interpretation leads to a result which is not desired by Regulation No 207/2009 and in particular by recital 3 in the preamble to that regulation, namely to a dissociation between registration and the possibility of using a Community trade mark in cases which are not expressly covered by the regulation.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6725 — Abertis Infraestructuras/Brookfield/Partícipes) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Brazil, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, telecommunications industry, transport infrastructure








C_2012297EN.01000901.xml










3.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6725 — Abertis Infraestructuras/Brookfield/Partícipes)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 297/09






1.


On 21 September 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 Abertis Infraestructuras SA (‘Abertis’, Spain) and Brookfield Brazil Motor Holdings Srl controlled by Brookfield Asset Management Inc. (‘Brookfield’, Canada) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Partícipes en Brasil SLU (‘Partícipes’, Spain) by way of purchase of shares in a joint venture company.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Abertis: provision of mobility and telecommunications infrastructure services,










—


for Brookfield: asset management investing in property, renewable power and infrastructure assets,










—


for Partícipes: operation and management of toll road concessions in Brasil.














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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6725 — Abertis Infraestructuras/Brookfield/Partícipes, 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-360/10: Order of the General Court of 3 October 2012 — Tecnimed v OHIM — Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK) (Community trade mark — Period allowed for bringing proceedings — Out of time — No unforeseeable circumstances — No force majeure — Right of access to a court — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, health care, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012366EN.01003401.xml










24.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/34





Order of the General Court of 3 October 2012 — Tecnimed v OHIM — Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK)
(Case T-360/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Period allowed for bringing proceedings - Out of time - No unforeseeable circumstances - No force majeure - Right of access to a court - Manifest inadmissibility)
2012/C 366/66
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tecnimed Srl (Vedano Olona, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi and V. Piccarreta, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ecobrands Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 June 2010 (Case R 1795/2008-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Tecnimed Srl and Ecobrands Ltd.

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Tecnimed Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.
Recommendation of the EU-Jordan Association Council of 3 October 2012 on the implementation of the EU-Jordan ENP Action Plan
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: EC–Jordan Association Council
Subjects: European neighbourhood policy, Jordan, Union for the Mediterranean, economic integration, political cooperation








L_2012287EN.01001301.xml










18.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 287/13








            RECOMMENDATION OF THE EU-JORDAN ASSOCIATION COUNCIL
         
of 3 October 2012
         
on the implementation of the EU-Jordan ENP Action Plan


THE EU-JORDAN ASSOCIATION COUNCIL,

Having regard to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part (1) (‘the Agreement’), and in particular Article 91 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Article 91 of the Agreement gives the EU-Jordan Association Council the power to make appropriate recommendations for the purposes of attaining the objectives of the Agreement.












(2)


Article 101 of the Agreement provides that the Parties to the Agreement are to take any general or specific measures required to fulfil their obligations under the Agreement and are to see to it that the objectives set out therein are attained.












(3)


The Parties to the Agreement have agreed on the text of the EU-Jordan European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan (‘the ENP Action Plan’).












(4)


The ENP Action Plan will support the implementation of the Agreement through the elaboration and agreement between the Parties of concrete steps which will provide practical guidance for such implementation.












(5)


The ENP Action Plan serves the dual purpose of setting out concrete steps for the Parties to fulfil their obligations under the Agreement, and of providing a broader framework for further strengthening EU-Jordan relations to involve a significant measure of economic integration and a deepening of political cooperation, in accordance with the overall objectives of the Agreement,





HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:



Sole Article
The Association Council recommends that the Parties implement the ENP Action Plan (2), in so far as such implementation is directed towards attainment of the objectives of the Agreement.




Done at Brussels, 3 October 2012.


For the EU-Jordan Association Council


The President

C. ASHTON
            





(1)  
            OJ L 129, 15.5.2002, p. 3.

(2)  See document 3302/12 on: http://register.consilium.europa.eu
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6733 — Ageas/Groupama Insurance Company) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance company, merger control








C_2012297EN.01000401.xml










3.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6733 — Ageas/Groupama Insurance Company)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 297/05






1.


On 24 September 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Ageas (UK) Limited (‘Ageas UK’, United Kingdom), a wholly owned subsidiary of Ageas SA/NV (‘Ageas’, Belgium) acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control of the whole of Groupama Insurance Company Limited (‘Groupama UK’, United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Ageas: provider of insurance services to personal, business and institutional customers and delivers packages of financial products and services through its own channel, and via intermediaries and other partners,










—


for Ageas UK: non-life insurance,










—


for Groupama UK: non-life insurer with a diversified book of business that provides products predominantly in the UK and, to a lesser extent, Ireland.














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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6733 — Ageas/Groupama Insurance Company, 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’).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6727 — Carlyle/DuPont Performance Coatings Business) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, paints and varnishes








C_2012297EN.01000701.xml










3.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6727 — Carlyle/DuPont Performance Coatings Business)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 297/07






1.


On 25 September 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 undertaking Flash Bermuda Co. Ltd (Bermuda), an acquisition vehicle owned and controlled by funds managed by The Carlyle Group (‘Carlyle’, USA), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of DuPont Performance Coatings (‘DPC’, USA), a business unit of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Carlyle: global alternative asset management,










—


for DPC: manufacture and sale of liquid and powder coatings.














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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6727 — Carlyle/DuPont Performance Coatings Business, 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 C-649/11 P: Order of the Court of 3 October 2012 — Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana S. Coop. Galega v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), María Constantina Sotelo Ares (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Word mark ROSALIA DE CASTRO — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ROSALIA)
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, agricultural cooperative, fundamental rights, rights of the defence, wine








C_2013101EN.01000501.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/5





Order of the Court of 3 October 2012 — Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana S. Coop. Galega v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), María Constantina Sotelo Ares
(Case C-649/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Word mark ROSALIA DE CASTRO - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ROSALIA)
2013/C 101/09
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana S. Coop. Galega (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, Abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, Agent) and María Constantina Sotelo Ares (represented by: C. Lema Devesa, Abogado)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2010 in Case T 421/10 Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana v OHIM — Sotelo Ares, by which the General Court rejected the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2010 (Case R 1804/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between María Constantina Sotelo Ares and Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana S. Coop. Galega is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.
Case C-441/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 3 October 2012 — Almer Beheer BV and Another v Van den Dungen Vastgoed BV and Another
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, consumer information, disclosure of information, official market, publication, securities








C_2013009EN.01002901.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/29





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 3 October 2012 — Almer Beheer BV and Another v Van den Dungen Vastgoed BV and Another
(Case C-441/12)
2013/C 9/48
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Almer Beheer BV, Daedalus Holding BV

Respondents: Van den Dungen Vastgoed BV, Oosterhout II BVBA

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 3(1) of the Prospectus Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to publish a prospectus laid down therein is also applicable in principle (that is to say, apart from the exemptions and exceptions for certain cases referred to in that directive) to an enforced sale of securities?










2.








(a)


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, should the concept of ‘the total consideration of the offer’ used in Article 1(2)(h) of the Prospectus Directive then be interpreted as meaning that the sums deriving from an enforced sale of securities must be those reasonably to be expected, with due regard for the particular nature of an enforced sale, even if the sums reasonably to be expected are well below the real economic value?










(b)


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, but the answer to Question 2(a) is in the negative, how should ‘the total consideration of the offer’ referred to in Article 1(2)(h) of the Prospectus Directive be construed, particularly in the case of an enforced sale of securities?










(1)  Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 64).
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,75 % on 1 October 2012 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest








C_2012297EN.01000301.xml










3.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/3





Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,75 % on 1 October 2012
Euro exchange rates (2)

2 October 2012
2012/C 297/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2930




JPY


Japanese yen


101,02




DKK


Danish krone


7,4554




GBP


Pound sterling


0,80060




SEK


Swedish krona


8,5326




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2102




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,3730




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,060




HUF


Hungarian forint


285,56




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6963




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1031




RON


Romanian leu


4,5241




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3170




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2531




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2693




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,0266




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5521




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5885




KRW


South Korean won


1 438,56




ZAR


South African rand


10,8000




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,1779




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4460




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 388,38




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9462




PHP


Philippine peso


53,758




RUB


Russian rouble


40,1600




THB


Thai baht


39,630




BRL


Brazilian real


2,6174




MXN


Mexican peso


16,5813




INR


Indian rupee


67,7470






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.