do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-568/12: Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Golam v OHIM — Derby Cycle Werke (FOCUS extreme)
Date: 2012-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013063EN.01002302.xml










2.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/23





Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Golam v OHIM — Derby Cycle Werke (FOCUS extreme)
(Case T-568/12)
2013/C 63/47
Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Derby Cycle Werke GmbH (Cloppenburg, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 October 2012 in Case R 2327/2011-4;










—


reject the opposition of the other party before the Board of Appeal and grant the application lodged by the applicant in its entirety;










—


order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sofia Golam

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘FOCUS extreme’ for goods in Classes 5, 16 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 894587

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Derby Cycle Werke GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘FOCUS’ which has been registered under No 2062620, for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009
Case T-545/12: Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Mory and Others v Commission
Date: 2012-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, State aid, control of State aid, reimbursement of aid








C_2013071EN.01002301.xml










9.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/23





Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Mory and Others v Commission
(Case T-545/12)
2013/C 71/36
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Mory SA (Pantin, France); Mory Team (Pantin) and Compagnie française superga d’investissement dans le service (CFSIS) (Miraumont, France) (represented by: B. Vatier and F. Loubières, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Commission Decision;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law in support of their action against Commission Decision C(2012) 2401 final of 4 April 2012, by which the Commission states that the obligation imposed on the Sernam companies to repay State aid by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2012) 1616 final of 9 March 2012 does not extend to the potential purchasers of the assets of the Sernam Group. (1)







1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission lacked the powers to adopt the contested decision and thus a misuse of powers, since the Commission is not competent to adopt a decision finding that the procedure adopted to execute the decision of 9 March 2012 does not constitute a circumvention of that procedure without a fresh in-depth investigation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to apply the formal investigation procedure when verifying State aid in the event of serious concerns.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging inconsistent subject-matter and reasons inasmuch as, firstly, the subject-matter of the decision referred to by the Commission and the actual content thereof do not equate to each other and, secondly, the decision applies contradictory criteria to assess the absence of economic continuity between the aided activities and the purchaser of those activities.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment as regards (i) the object of the sale, (ii) the transfer price, (iii) the moment when the transfer was effected, (iv) the degree of independence of the new owners and shareholders and (v) the economic logic of the transaction.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging a lack of legal basis, inasmuch as the decision was adopted without it being ascertained that the transfer of the assets was made at their market value and without a study of the consequences of the fact that the purchaser belongs to the same group as that which distributed the unlawful aid.






(1)  State aid No SA.34547 (2012/N) — France, in the notice to the Official Journal of the European Union
OJ 2012 C 305, p. 10.
Case T-228/11 P: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2012 — Barbin v Parliament (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Death of the applicant — Non-resumption of proceedings by the successors — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2012-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, death, interest in bringing an action








C_2013055EN.01001203.xml










23.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/12





Order of the General Court of 17 December 2012 — Barbin v Parliament
(Case T-228/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Death of the applicant - Non-resumption of proceedings by the successors - No need to adjudicate)
2013/C 55/22
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Florence Barbin (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and E. Despotopoulou, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 15 February 2011 in Case F-68/09 Barbin v Parliament ECR I-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present appeal.










2.


Each party is to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1233/2012 of 17 December 2012 establishing a prohibition of fishing for skates and rays in EU waters of VIId by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands
Date: 2012-12-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU waters, English Channel, Netherlands, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, ship's flag








L_2012350EN.01003601.xml










20.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 350/36








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1233/2012
of 17 December 2012
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for skates and rays in EU waters of VIId by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 17 December 2012.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Lowri EVANS
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 25, 27.1.2012, p. 1.




ANNEX






No


80/TQ43




Member State


The Netherlands




Stock


SRX/07D.




Species


Skates and rays (rajiformes)




Zone


EU waters of VIId




Date


30.11.2012
Case C-590/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Winsen (Luhe) (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2012 — Andrea Merten v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG
Date: 2012-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: insurance premium, interpretation of the law, life assurance








C_2013046EN.01001701.xml










16.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Winsen (Luhe) (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2012 — Andrea Merten v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG
(Case C-590/12)
2013/C 46/31
Language of the case: German

Referring Court

Amtsgericht Winsen (Local Court, Winsen) (Luhe)

Parties in the main proceedings


Applicant: Andrea Merten

Defendant: ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

Question referred

Should Article 15(1), first sentence, of Directive 90/619/EEC, (1) in consideration of Article 31(1) of Directive 92/96/EEC (2) as amended by Articles 35 and 36, in conjunction with Article 32, of Directive 2002/83/EC, (3) be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a provision — such as Article 5a(2), fourth indent, of the German Insurance Contracts Act (VVG), as amended by the third Law transposing the Directives of the Council of the European Communities on insurance law of 21 July 1994 — under which the insurance policy holder’s right to withdrawal or objection expires, at the latest, one year after the payment of the first insurance premium, even if the policy holder was not adequately informed of the right to withdrawal or objection?


(1)  Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (Second Life Assurance Directive) (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50).

(2)  Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1).

(3)  Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 05 November 2002 concerning life assurance (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1).
Case T-557/12: Action brought on 17 December 2012 — RiskMetrics Solutions/OHIM (RISKMANAGER)
Date: 2012-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, financial analysis, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2013063EN.01002203.xml










2.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/22





Action brought on 17 December 2012 — RiskMetrics Solutions/OHIM (RISKMANAGER)
(Case T-557/12)
2013/C 63/45
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: RiskMetrics Solutions LLC (New York, United States) (represented by: I. De Freitas, Solicitor)

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 contested decision in its entirety so that Community Trade Mark No 9 446 881 is accepted and proceeds through to publication;










—


Order OHMI to pay the appellant’s costs in relation to these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘RISKMANAGER’ for goods and services in classes 9, 35 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 446 881

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-546/12: Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Pensa Pharma v OHIM — Ferring and Farmaceutisk Lab Ferring (pensa)
Date: 2012-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013055EN.01001901.xml










23.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/19





Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Pensa Pharma v OHIM — Ferring and Farmaceutisk Lab Ferring (pensa)
(Case T-546/12)
2013/C 55/33
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Pensa Pharma, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz and M. González Gordon, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) and Farmaceutisk Lab Ferring A/S (Vanlose, Denmark)

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 1 October 2012 in case R 1884/2011-5; and










—


Order the defendant and if the case might be, the interveners, to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of the appeal incurred within the OHIM.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘pensa’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 44 — Community trade mark registration No 4963542

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The requests for a declaration of invalidity were based on the grounds laid down in Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) and Article 53(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, and on the Benelux trade mark registration No 377513 of the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for goods in class 5

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Accepted the request for a declaration of invalidity against the CTM for all the contested goods and services

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 53(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and










—


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