do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-610/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2012 — Johannes Peter v Bundeseisenbahnvermögen
Date: 2012-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, civil servant, cohabitation, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, marriage








C_2013101EN.01000802.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2012 — Johannes Peter v Bundeseisenbahnvermögen
(Case C-610/12)
2013/C 101/17
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Giessen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Johannes Peter

Defendant: Bundeseisenbahnvermögen

Question referred

In a case of unequal treatment that has already been found to exist in the past, between married civil servants and those living in registered life partnerships, is it in accordance with Directive 2000/78/EC (1) to grant, pursuant to the applicable constitutional principles in the Federal Republic of Germany, a retrospective claim for equal treatment under the law on remuneration only with effect from the beginning of the financial year in which the civil servant first made the claim to his employer?


(1)  Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
Case T-551/12: Action brought on 27 December 2012 — Coppenrath-Verlag v OHIM — Sembella (Rebella)
Date: 2012-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, bookshop, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013055EN.01002001.xml










23.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/20





Action brought on 27 December 2012 — Coppenrath-Verlag v OHIM — Sembella (Rebella)
(Case T-551/12)
2013/C 55/35
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Coppenrath-Verlag GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: D. Pohl, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sembella GmbH (Timelkam, Austria)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 October 2012 in Case R 1681/2011-2;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Rebella’ for goods in Classes 20 and 24 — Community trade mark application No 8 498 735

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sembella GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘Sembella’ for goods in Classes 17, 20 and 22

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed and the application was accordingly rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-578/12: Action brought on 27 December 2012 — NIOC v Council
Date: 2012-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, infringement of EU law, international sanctions, legal basis, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2013079EN.01002001.xml










16.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/20





Action brought on 27 December 2012 — NIOC v Council
(Case T-578/12)
2013/C 79/36
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: National Iran Oil Co. (NIOC) (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012, in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012, in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


declare that Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 is inapplicable with regard to it;










—


declare that Decision 2012/635/CFSP is inapplicable with regard to it;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which in essence are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-577/12 NIOC and Others v Council.
Case C-604/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 27 December 2012 — HN v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Date: 2012-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ireland, interpretation of the law, national law, refugee








C_2013086EN.01000902.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/9





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 27 December 2012 — HN v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
(Case C-604/12)
2013/C 86/14
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: HN

Defendants: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

Question referred

Does Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1), interpreted in the light of the principle of good administration in the law of the European Union and, in particular, as provided by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, permit a Member State, to provide in its law that an application for subsidiary protection status can be considered only if the applicant has applied for and been refused refugee status in accordance with national law?


(1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted
OJ L 304, p. 2
Case T-565/12: Action brought on 27 December 2012 — National Iranian Tanker Company v Council
Date: 2012-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2013055EN.01002201.xml










23.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/22





Action brought on 27 December 2012 — National Iranian Tanker Company v Council
(Case T-565/12)
2013/C 55/39
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: National Iranian Tanker Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: R. Chandrasekera, S. Ashley, C. Murphy, Solicitors, and M. Lester, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 (2), in so far as those measure apply to the applicant;










—


Order the annulment to take effect immediately and not be suspended;










—


Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that none of the legal criteria for listing the applicants is fulfilled, the Council erred manifestly in considering that any of the criteria for listing was fulfilled, and there is no valid legal or factual basis for its designation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for designating the applicant.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and to effective judicial review.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council’s decision to designate the applicant has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business, and reputation






(1)  Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58)

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16)
Case T-580/12: Action brought on 27 December 2012 — Yaqub/OHIM — Turkey (ATATURK)
Date: 2012-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Türkiye, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013079EN.01002101.xml










16.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/21





Action brought on 27 December 2012 — Yaqub/OHIM — Turkey (ATATURK)
(Case T-580/12)
2013/C 79/37
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: J. Yaqub (Nottingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Jenkins, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Republic of Turkey

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the second board of appeal of the 17 September 2012.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘ATATURK’ for goods in classes 3, 5, 25, 29, 30 and 32 (Community trade mark 4 633 434)

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Republic of Turkey

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The request for a declaration of invalidity was based on grounds for refusal pursuant to Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Articles 7(1)(b) and (f) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of the Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-608/12 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2012 by Greinwald GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2012 in Case T-333/11 Nicolas Wessang v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2012-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013063EN.01001201.xml










2.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/12





Appeal brought on 27 December 2012 by Greinwald GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2012 in Case T-333/11 Nicolas Wessang v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-608/12 P)
2013/C 63/20
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Greinwald GmbH (represented by: C. Onken, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Nicolas Wessang

Form of order sought







—


Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 in Case T-333/11 in so far as the application was granted;










—


amend the judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 in Case T-333/11 so as to dismiss the application in its entirety;










—


order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal is incompatible with the legal rationale underlying Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Community trade mark regulation (CTMR), (1) in that it is based on the assumption of an increase in the likelihood of confusion owing to the conceptual similarity of the words ‘foods’ and ‘snacks’. According to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR, signs that are devoid of any distinctive character and descriptive signs are excluded from trade mark protection. Similarities between components of signs that are devoid of any distinctive character or are descriptive cannot therefore be responsible for, or increase, any likelihood of confusion.
It follows from this that a likelihood of confusion presupposes the possible impairment of a trade mark’s function as an indication of origin. However, such a function can be ascribed only to signs and components of signs that have distinctive character. If a component of a sign does not have the function of indicating origin, that function cannot be impaired as a result of the use of a similar component of a sign in a subsequent trade mark.
The principle that components of signs that are devoid of distinctive character cannot give rise to any likelihood of confusion is, after all, reflected in the case-law of the Court, according to which the public will not generally consider a descriptive element forming part of a complex mark to be the distinctive or dominant element of the overall impression of a composite mark.


(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p.1.
Case C-609/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2012 — Ehrmann AG v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.
Date: 2012-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, consumer information, foodstuff, human nutrition, interpretation of the law, labelling, trade information








C_2013101EN.01000801.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2012 — Ehrmann AG v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.
(Case C-609/12)
2013/C 101/16
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ehrmann AG

Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.

Question referred

Was it necessary to comply with the duty to provide information under Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1) in 2010?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9, and Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the list of nutrition claims (Text with EEA relevance) OJ 2010 L 37, p. 16.