do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-263/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2013 — Bopp v OHIM (Representation of a green octagonal frame) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing a green octagonal frame — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Offer of evidence submitted for the first time in the reply — Article 48(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Document sent to OHIM by fax — Applicable rules)
Date: 2013-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, facsimile, official document, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013079EN.01001501.xml










16.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/15





Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2013 — Bopp v OHIM (Representation of a green octagonal frame)
(Case T-263/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a green octagonal frame - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Offer of evidence submitted for the first time in the reply - Article 48(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Document sent to OHIM by fax - Applicable rules)
2013/C 79/26
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Carsten Bopp (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by: C. Russ, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel and D. Walicka initially, then by K. Klüpfel and A. Pohlmann, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2011 (Case R 605/2010-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing a green octagonal frame.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 March 2011 (Case R 605/2010-4);










2.


Orders OHIM to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
Case T-60/13: Action brought on 6 February 2013 — Reiner Appelrath-Cüpper/OHIM — Ann Christine Lizenzmanagement (AC)
Date: 2013-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013101EN.01002302.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/23





Action brought on 6 February 2013 — Reiner Appelrath-Cüpper/OHIM — Ann Christine Lizenzmanagement (AC)
(Case T-60/13)
2013/C 101/51
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Reiner Appelrath-Cüpper Nachf. GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Schumann and A. Berger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ann Christine Lizenzmanagement GmbH & Co. KG (Braunschweig, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Forth Board of Appeal of 28 November 2012 (R 108/2012-4) insofar as the appeal was upheld and the CTM applied for was rejected;










—


Order the defendant to pay the cost of the proceedings;










—


Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘AC’, for goods and services in classes 9, 14, 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 070 021

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: German trademarks No 30 666 076 and No 30 666 074 and International trade mark registration No 948 259 designating several Member States of the European Union of the figurative mark ‘AC ANNE CHRISTINE’, for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25 and 35; Community trade mark No 6 904 783, for goods in classes 3, 9, 14 and 25; Community trademark No 6 905 541 for goods in classes 3, 14 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal partly and annulled the contested decision with respect goods and services of classes 9, 14, 18, 25 and 35, rejected the CTM applied for these goods and services and rejected the appeal for the remainder

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 15 and 42(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-62/13: Action brought on 6 February 2013 — GOLAM v OHIM — Glaxo Group (METABIOMAX)
Date: 2013-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013086EN.01002701.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/27





Action brought on 6 February 2013 — GOLAM v OHIM — Glaxo Group (METABIOMAX)
(Case T-62/13)
2013/C 86/45
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: Glaxo Group Ltd (Greenford, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 October 2012 in Case R 2089/2011-2;










—


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: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘METABIOMAX’, for goods in Classes 5, 16 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 8885261

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: The Community word mark ‘BIOMAX’ which has been registered under No 2661858, for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partly upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division partly annulled.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009
European Parliament legislative resolution of 6 February 2013 on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (COM(2012)0709 — C7-0410/2012 — 2012/0335(NLE))
Date: 2013-02-06
Institutions: Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, European Parliament
Subjects: EU employment policy, EU programme, continuing education, fight against unemployment, job creation, labour market, social security, vocational training








C_2016024EN.01011802.xml










22.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/118





P7_TA(2013)0038
Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 6 February 2013 on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (COM(2012)0709 — C7-0410/2012 — 2012/0335(NLE))
(Consultation)
(2016/C 024/20)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2012)0709),










—


having regard to Article 148(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0410/2012),










—


having regard to Rules 55 and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0010/2013),












1.


Approves the Commission proposal;












2.


Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;












3.


Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;












4.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.