do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-501/12: Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring v OHIM — Tillotts Pharma (OCTASA)
Date: 2012-11-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Member State, EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013026EN.01006101.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/61





Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring v OHIM — Tillotts Pharma (OCTASA)
(Case T-501/12)
2013/C 26/121
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor, A. Renck and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tillotts Pharma AG (Ziefen, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in case R 1214/2011-4; and.










—


Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Defendant, or — in the event that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes on the side of the Defendant — that they be borne jointly by the Defendant and the Intervener.





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 ‘OCTASA’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 8169881

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Austrian trade mark registration No 102370 for the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for among others goods in class 5; Hungarian trade mark registration No 136836 for the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for goods in class 5; Italian trade mark registration No 40977 C/81 for the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for among others goods in class 5; Polish trade mark registration No 71634 for the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for goods in class 5; Slovak trade mark registration No 175482 for the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for goods in class 5; Swedish trade mark registration No 173377 for the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for among others goods in class 5; French trade mark registration No 1699236 for the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for among others goods in class 5; Irish trade mark registration No 107207 for the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for goods in class 5; Czech trade mark registration No 182567 for the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for goods in class 5

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 Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-519/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 19 November 2012 — OTP Bank Nyilvánosan Működő Részvénytársaság v Hochtief Solutions AG
Date: 2012-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract, credit, firm governed by commercial law, interpretation of the law








C_2013046EN.01001302.xml










16.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/13





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 19 November 2012 — OTP Bank Nyilvánosan Működő Részvénytársaság v Hochtief Solutions AG
(Case C-519/12)
2013/C 46/24
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: OTP Bank Nyilvánosan Működő Részvénytársaság

Defendant: Hochtief Solutions AG

Question referred

Does a claim between parties which are not in a direct contractual relationship, asserted by an applicant company, which has granted credit, against a (foreign) member of a company which has received credit, that member having had a controlling interest in the latter company at the material time, qualify as a contract under Article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, (1) where the applicant company alleges that the company receiving the loan is liable for the debts of the controlled company?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters; OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
Case C-521/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Nederland) lodged on 19 November 2012 — T.C. Briels and Others v Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu
Date: 2012-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: conservation of resources, habitat, interpretation of the law, protected area, protection of animal life, protection of plant life








C_2013055EN.01000301.xml










23.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Nederland) lodged on 19 November 2012 — T.C. Briels and Others v Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu
(Case C-521/12)
2013/C 55/04
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: T.C. Briels, M. Briels-Loermans, R.L.P. Buchholtz, Stichting A2-Platform Boxtel e.o.and Others, H.W.G. Cox, G.P.A. Damman, P.A.M. Goevaers and Others, J.H. van Haaren en L.S.P. Dijkman, R.A.H.M. Janssen, M.M. van Lanschot, J.E.A.M. Lelijveld and Others, A. Mes and Others, A.J.J. Michels, VOF Isphording and Others, M. Peijnenborg en S. Peijnenborg-van Oers, G. Oude Elferink, W. Punte en P.M. Punte-Cammaert, Stichting Reinier van Arkel, E. de Ridder, W.C.M.A.J.G. van Rijckevorsel en M. van Rijckevorsel-van Asch van Wijck, Vereniging tot Behoud van het Groene Hart van Brabant en Stichting Boom en Bosch, Stichting Overlast A2 Vught e.o., Streekraad Het Groene Woud en De Meijerij, A.C.M.W. Teulings en Stichting Bleijendijk, M. Tilman, Vereniging van Eigenaars Appartementengebouw De Heun I and Others, M.C.T. Veroude, E.J.A.M. Widlak, Van Roosmalen Sales BV and Others, M.A.A. van Kessel, Bricorama BV and Others

Defendant: Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu

Other parties to the proceedings: Burgemeester en Wethouders van Best, Burgemeester en Wethouders van Boxtel

Questions referred







1.


Is the phrase ‘not adversely affect the integrity of the site’ in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora to be interpreted as meaning that where the project adversely affects the area of a protected natural habitat type within the site, the integrity of the site is not adversely affected if in the framework of the project an area of that natural habitat type of equal or similar size is created within that site?










2.


If the answer to the first question is that the phrase ‘not adversely affect the integrity of the site’ is to be interpreted as meaning that the integrity of the Natura 2000 site is affected, is the creation of a new area of a natural habitat type then to be regarded in that case as a compensatory measure within the meaning of Article 6(4) of the directive?






(1)  OJ L 206, p. 7.
Case C-523/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia (Italy) lodged on 19 November 2012 — Dirextra Alta Formazione Srl v Regione Puglia
Date: 2012-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, interpretation of the law, market access, principle of proportionality, provision of services, university








C_2013032EN.01000502.xml










2.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia (Italy) lodged on 19 November 2012 — Dirextra Alta Formazione Srl v Regione Puglia
(Case C-523/12)
2013/C 32/07
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dirextra Alta Formazione Srl

Defendant: Regione Puglia

Question referred

Is a provision of law — such as Article 2(3) of Puglia Regional Law No 12/2009, in force at regional level — which regulates in a restrictive manner access to the market for the provision of certain specific services designed to enhance the level of education locally (post-graduate Masters degree courses), making such access conditional upon meeting a single requirement which, in relation to the purpose of the Community measure (enhancement of the quality of education and, accordingly, selection of individuals with suitable qualifications) is arbitrarily chosen and expressed (a number of hours spread over an unnecessarily long period) and not differentiated according to the actual duration of the specific service, compatible with Article 56 et seq. and Article 101 et seq. (formerly Article 49 et seq. and Article 81 et seq. of the EC Treaty) and Article 107 et seq. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (in the version in force from 1 December 2009) and with the principles of competition, proportionality, non-discrimination and equal treatment which may be inferred from those rules, and with Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 2 of the Additional Protocol thereto and Articles 11 and 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?
Case T-508/12: Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Automobile Association v OHIM — Duncan Petersen Publishing (Folders)
Date: 2012-11-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, designs and models, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013026EN.01006401.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/64





Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Automobile Association v OHIM — Duncan Petersen Publishing (Folders)
(Case T-508/12)
2013/C 26/126
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: The Automobile Association Ltd (St. Helier, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Walker, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Duncan Petersen Publishing Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2012 in case R 172/2011-3, and remit the matter back to OHIM for reconsideration; and.










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs of the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for the product ‘folders’ — registered Community design No 1121404-0001

Proprietor of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The applicant requested the invalidity of the RCD based on Articles 4 to 9 of Council Regulation No 6/2002

Decision of the Invalidity Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 8(2) in conjunction with Article 62 of Council Regulation No 6/2002; and










—


Infringement of Article 25(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 3(a) of Council Regulation No 6/2002.
Case T-505/12: Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon v OHIM — Cheng (B)
Date: 2012-11-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013026EN.01006302.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/63





Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon v OHIM — Cheng (B)
(Case T-505/12)
2013/C 26/125
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA (Saint-Imier, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Xiuxiu Cheng (Budapest, Hungary)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 September 2012 in case R 193/2012-5; and.










—


Order the Defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.





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 in black and white ‘B’, for goods in classes 9 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 8483562

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 401319 of the figurative mark representing a device of extended wings with a geometric design in the middle, for goods in classes 7, 9 and 14

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 Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-524/12 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2012 by TeamBank AG Nürnberg against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2012 in Case T-220/11 TeamBank AG Nürnberg v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2012-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, consumer information, financial services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013009EN.01003302.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/33





Appeal brought on 19 November 2012 by TeamBank AG Nürnberg against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2012 in Case T-220/11 TeamBank AG Nürnberg v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-524/12 P)
2013/C 9/56
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (represented by: D. Terheggen, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-220/11 in its entirety;










—


grant in full the applications made at first instance in its application of 18 April 2011 before the General Court.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The General Court misapplied Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in finding there to be a likelihood of confusion between ‘f@ir Credit’ and ‘FERCREDIT’.
Contrary to the view taken by the General Court, there is a clear visual difference in the overall impressions of the two signs. Furthermore, account needs to be taken of the fact that the signs in dispute relate to financial services, which usually have significant financial consequences for their users. Thus, it is to be assumed that the average consumer will examine these signs particularly carefully and are highly likely to recognise the differences between them. However, the General Court did not adequately examine that circumstance.
On a correct assessment of that circumstance and the differences in the overall impression of both signs there are no relevant similarities between the signs.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case T-504/12: Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM (NOTFALL CREME)
Date: 2012-11-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, product designation, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013026EN.01006301.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/63





Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM (NOTFALL CREME)
(Case T-504/12)
2013/C 26/124
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH (Trebur, Germany) (represented by F. Traub and H. Daniel, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 September 2012 in Case R 271/2012-4;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark, including the word element ‘NOTFALL CREME’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5 — Community trade mark application No 10 107 134

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009
Case C-522/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Deutschland) lodged on 19 November 2012 — Tevfik Isbir v DB Services GmbH
Date: 2012-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective agreement, entrepreneur, interpretation of the law, minimum pay, work schedule








C_2013032EN.01000501.xml










2.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Deutschland) lodged on 19 November 2012 — Tevfik Isbir v DB Services GmbH
(Case C-522/12)
2013/C 32/06
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tevfik Isbir

Defendant: DB Services GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is the expression ‘minimum rates of pay’ in Article 3(1), first subparagraph, point (c) of Directive 96/71/EC (1) to be interpreted as referring to the consideration of the employer for the work done by the worker which should be discharged according to the law, regulation or administrative provision or the universally applicable collective agreement referred to in the opening sentence of Article 3(1) of the directive only and exclusively by the collective minimum wage (‘usual work’), meaning that it is only those employer payments which reward that usual work and which must be available to the worker at the latest on the date when they are payable within the respective wage payment period which can be counted towards the fulfilment of the obligation to pay the minimum rate of pay?










2.


Is the expression ‘minimum rates of pay’ in Article 3(1), first subparagraph, point (c) of Directive 96/71/EC to be interpreted as precluding national provisions or practices according to which payments by an employer are not be to regarded as part of the minimum wage and therefore cannot be counted towards fulfilment of the entitlement to the minimum wage, if the employer makes those payments on the basis of a collective agreement-based obligation,






—


and the payments, according to the intention of the parties to the collective agreement and of the legislature, have capital-generating objectives for the workers,




and to that end,






—


the monthly payments by the employer to the employee are for long-term purposes such as contributions towards savings, the construction or acquisition of a residence or capital life insurance, and










—


are subsidised by allowances and tax breaks from the State, and










—


the worker is entitled to access those contributions only after several years have elapsed, and










—


the level of the contributions in the form of a fixed monthly sum is dependent only on the agreed working time and not on the salary paid (‘capital-generating contributions’)?










(1)  Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1)
Case C-1/11 SA: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 November 2012 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission (Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on the European Union)
Date: 2012-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, personal property, seizure of goods








C_2013038EN.01001002.xml










9.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/10





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 November 2012 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission
(Case C-1/11 SA) (1)

(Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on the European Union)
2013/C 38/12
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Protocol on privileges and immunities — Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on the Commission in respect of sums owing to the European Union by the Italian Republic and, in the alternative, in respect of movable property belonging to the European Union held in the Italian Republic — Waiver of the Commission’s immunity — Article 1 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for a garnishee order is dismissed.










2.


Mr Luigi Marcuccio and the European Commission are ordered to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.