do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-1/13: Action brought on 3 January 2013 — ZZ v Europol
Date: 2013-01-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: contract, servant (EU), severance pay








C_2013079EN.01003303.xml










16.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/33





Action brought on 3 January 2013 — ZZ v Europol
(Case F-1/13)
2013/C 79/56
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of Europol’s decision not to renew the applicant’s contract for an unlimited period and an order that Europol pay the difference between the remuneration which she could have continued to receive from Europol and any other allowance which she actually received.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision adopted by the defendant on 29 February 2012 by which the defendant informed the applicant that it would not be renewing her fixed-term contract which expired on 31 May 2012;










—


Order the defendant to pay the applicant the difference between the amount of the remuneration which she would have been able to claim had she remained in her post with the defendant and the amount of the remuneration, fees, unemployment benefits or any other substituted payment which she has actually received since 1 June 2012 to replace the remuneration which she received as a temporary staff member;










—


Order Europol to pay all the costs.
Case T-14/13: Action brought on 3 January 2013 — Seal Trademarks/OHIM — Exel Composites (XCEL)
Date: 2013-01-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, section, sporting event, trade-mark law








C_2013086EN.01001902.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/19





Action brought on 3 January 2013 — Seal Trademarks/OHIM — Exel Composites (XCEL)
(Case T-14/13)
2013/C 86/32
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Seal Trademarks Pty Ltd (Queensland, Australia) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Exel Composites Oyj (Mäntyharju, Finland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the Second Board of Appeal’s Decision of 11 October 2012 or;










—


Subsidiarily, modify it, because it goes contrary to Articles 42, paragraphs 2 and 3, and 8, paragraph 1, letter b) of the CTMR (expressly sentencing OHIM to court fees).





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘XCEL’ for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark registration No 3 809 571

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 2 996 891, Austrian trade mark registration No 149 726 and Swedish trade mark registration No 324 307 of the word mark ‘EXEL’ for goods in classes 18 and 28

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42(2) and (3) and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-13/13: Action brought on 3 January 2013 — MasterCard International/OHIM — Nehra (surfpin)
Date: 2013-01-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic money, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013086EN.01001901.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/19





Action brought on 3 January 2013 — MasterCard International/OHIM — Nehra (surfpin)
(Case T-13/13)
2013/C 86/31
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: N. Bolter and C. Sawdy, solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sheetal Nehra (London, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision under Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) CTMR;










—


Uphold the applicant’s opposition filed against the respondent’s mark in its entirety;










—


In the alternative, uphold the applicant’s opposition in respect of such services for which it is found that a likelihood of confusion exists and/or for such services where it is determined there exists a risk of the application mark taking unfair advantage of, or being detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the applicant’s mark; and










—


Order the respondent to pay the cost of the applicant.





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 blue, black and white containing the word element ‘surfpin’ and a device of three overlapping circles for services in classes 36 — Community trade mark application No 8 368 862

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative marks in different colours containing a device of overlapping circles and some of them the word elements ‘MasterCard Worldwide’ or ‘MasterCard’ — Community trade mark registration No 5 198 585, Community trade mark registration No 5 198 494, UK trade mark registration No 2 425 471, UK trade mark registration No 2 429 669, Community trade mark registration No 5 646 261, Community trade mark registration No 761 221, Community trade mark registration No 5 646 492 and Community trade mark registration No 5 646 609 for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (4) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-5/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 January 2013 — Ferenc Tibor Kovács v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság
Date: 2013-01-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, equal treatment, free movement of persons, interpretation of the law, road traffic, vehicle registration








C_2013114EN.01002302.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/23





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 January 2013 — Ferenc Tibor Kovács v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság
(Case C-5/13)
2013/C 114/35
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ferenc Tibor Kovács

Defendant: Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

Question referred

Should the law on non-discrimination, freedom of movement for workers and the right to a fair trial, be interpreted as precluding a provision of the law of a Member State such as Paragraph 25/B of Law I of 1988, according to which only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates granted by the Hungarian authorities may be used on the roads in Hungary, and the fulfilment of the requirements which allow exemption from that provision may be established only during the inspection?