do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-74/13: Action brought on 7 February 2013 — Al-Tabbaa v Council
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, international sanctions, ownership, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2013086EN.01002801.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/28





Action brought on 7 February 2013 — Al-Tabbaa v Council
(Case T-74/13)
2013/C 86/47
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mazen Al-Tabbaa (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister, and G. Martin, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), insofar as it concerns the applicant;










—


Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012 of 29 November 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 9), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and










—


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 the defendant committed a manifest error of fact and assessment in deciding to apply these restrictive measures to the applicant and in considering that any of the criteria for listing were fulfilled.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to give the applicant sufficient or adequate reasons for his inclusion in the contested measures.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the applicant’s basic fundamental rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property, to conduct his business, to reputation, and to private and family life.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6799 — Mitsui/Pag/Pag Italy)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, United States, economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2013035EN.01000102.xml










7.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6799 — Mitsui/Pag/Pag Italy)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 35/02
On 31 January 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6799. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-407/12: Order of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — Ubee Interactive v OHIM — Augere Holdings (Netherlands) (Ubee Interactive) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Opposition withdrawn — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, telecommunications equipment, trade-mark law








C_2013101EN.01001802.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/18





Order of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — Ubee Interactive v OHIM — Augere Holdings (Netherlands) (Ubee Interactive)
(Case T-407/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Opposition withdrawn - No need to adjudicate)
2013/C 101/39
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ubee Interactive Corp. (Jhubei City, Taiwan) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Augere Holdings (Netherlands) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 July 2012 (Case R 1849/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Augere Holdings (Netherlands) BV and Ubee Interactive Corp.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs incurred by the defendant.






(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.
Case T-50/12: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — AMC-Representações Têxteis v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO KIDS COMPANY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark METRO KIDS COMPANY — Earlier international figurative mark METRO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, child, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013101EN.01001801.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/18





Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — AMC-Representações Têxteis v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO KIDS COMPANY)
(Case T-50/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark METRO KIDS COMPANY - Earlier international figurative mark METRO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2013/C 101/38
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: AMC-Representações Têxteis Lda (Taveiro, Portugal) (represented by: V. Caires Soares, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 November 2011 (Case R 2314/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and AMC-Representações Têxteis Lda.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders AMC-Representações Têxteis Lda to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.
Case C-311/12: Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Nienburg — Germany) — Heinz Kassner v Mittelweser-Tiefbau GmbH & Co KG
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective agreement, interpretation of the law, national law, paid leave, pay cut, reduction of working time, sick leave








C_2013108EN.01001904.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/19





Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Nienburg — Germany) — Heinz Kassner v Mittelweser-Tiefbau GmbH & Co KG
(Case C-311/12) (1)

2013/C 108/48
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.
Case T-71/13: Action brought on 7 February 2013 — Anapurna/OHIM — Annapurna (ANNAPURNA)
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2013101EN.01002501.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/25





Action brought on 7 February 2013 — Anapurna/OHIM — Annapurna (ANNAPURNA)
(Case T-71/13)
2013/C 101/54
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Anapurna GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Ehrlinger and T. Hagen, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Annapurna SpA (Prato, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the contested decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHMI of 3 December 2012, inasmuch as it upheld the registration of Community trademark No 001368166 ‘ANNAPURNA’, and did not declare it null and void, for the goods ‘bags’ (class 18), ‘bed covers and bed linen’ (class 24) and ‘articles of clothing, headgear, slippers’ (class 25);










—


Order the intervening party to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred during the course of the appeal proceedings;










—


Request the defendant to produce the evidence of use (‘Exhibits’) submitted by the intervening party within the framework of the nullity proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘ANNAPURNA’ for goods in classes 3, 18, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 1 368 166

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

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the Community trade mark in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision in part and revoked the Community trade mark for further goods

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-84/07: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — EuroChem MCC v Council (Dumping — Imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia — Request for an expiry review — Request for an interim review — Admissibility — Normal value — Export price — Articles 1, 2 and 11(1) to (3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 1, 2 and 11(1) to (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping legislation, chemical fertiliser, export price, import (EU), originating product








C_2013101EN.01001501.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/15





Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — EuroChem MCC v Council
(Case T-84/07) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia - Request for an expiry review - Request for an interim review - Admissibility - Normal value - Export price - Articles 1, 2 and 11(1) to (3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 1, 2 and 11(1) to (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
2013/C 101/31
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company OAO (EuroChem MCC) (Moscow, Russia) (represented: initially by P. Vander Schueren and B. Evtimov, lawyers, and subsequently by B. Evtimov and D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, and by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and K. Talabér Ritz, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1911/2006 of 19 December 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2006 L 365, p. 26).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company OAO (EuroChem MCC) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.
Case T-408/12: Order of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — Ubee Interactive v OHIM — Augere Holdings (Netherlands) (ubee) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Opposition withdrawn — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, telecommunications equipment, trade-mark law








C_2013101EN.01001803.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/18





Order of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — Ubee Interactive v OHIM — Augere Holdings (Netherlands) (ubee)
(Case T-408/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Opposition withdrawn - No need to adjudicate)
2013/C 101/40
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ubee Interactive Corp. (Jhubei City, Taiwan) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Augere Holdings (Netherlands) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 July 2012 (Case R 1848/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Augere Holdings (Netherlands) BV and Ubee Interactive Corp.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs incurred by the defendant.






(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.
Case C-577/12: Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle, Wien (Austria)) — Michaela Hopfgartner
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, EU law - national law, family benefit, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law








C_2013129EN.01001302.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/13





Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle, Wien (Austria)) — Michaela Hopfgartner
(Case C-577/12) (1)

2013/C 129/25
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6708 — BMS/Astrazeneca/Amylin Business) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2013035EN.01000501.xml










7.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6708 — BMS/Astrazeneca/Amylin Business)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 35/06






1.


On 28 January 2013, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (‘BMS’, USA) and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (‘AZ’, UK) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Amylin Collaboration Business (‘Amylin Business’, USA) by way of acquisition of certain governance rights.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


AZ: primarily engaged in the discovery, development, manufacture and commercialization of prescription medicines for gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, neuroscience, respiratory and inflammation, oncology and infectious diseases,










—


BMS: active in the development and commercialization of treatments in several areas, in particular cardiovascular, virology (including HIV infection), oncology, neuroscience, immunoscience, and metabolics treatments,










—


Amylin Business: joint development and commercialization of four Amylin compounds, namely exenatide, pramlintide, metreleptin and AC165198.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6708 — BMS/Astrazeneca/Amylin Business, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Case T-78/13: Action brought on 7 February 2013 — Red Bull/OHIM — Sun Mark (BULLDOG)
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013108EN.01003102.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/31





Action brought on 7 February 2013 — Red Bull/OHIM — Sun Mark (BULLDOG)
(Case T-78/13)
2013/C 108/79
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck and I. Fowler, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sun Mark Ltd (Middlesex, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 November 2012 in Case R 0107/2012-2; and










—


Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if they join as 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 ‘BULLDOG’, for goods in classes 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 9 215 567

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and international trade mark registrations of the word mark ‘BULL’ and ‘RED BULL’ for goods in classes 32 and 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-117/12: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Burgos — Spain) — La Retoucherie de Manuela S. L. v La Retoucherie de Burgos S. C. (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Competition — Agreements between undertakings — Article 81 EC — Block exemption for vertical agreements — Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 — Article 5(b) — Non-compete obligation imposed on the buyer upon expiry of a franchise agreement — Premises and land from which the buyer has operated during the contract period)
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, contract terms, franchising, interpretation of the law, restriction on competition, vertical agreement








C_2013108EN.01000803.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/8





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Burgos — Spain) — La Retoucherie de Manuela S. L. v La Retoucherie de Burgos S. C.
(Case C-117/12) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Competition - Agreements between undertakings - Article 81 EC - Block exemption for vertical agreements - Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 - Article 5(b) - Non-compete obligation imposed on the buyer upon expiry of a franchise agreement - Premises and land from which the buyer has operated during the contract period)
2013/C 108/16
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Burgos

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: La Retoucherie de Manuela S. L.

Defendant: La Retoucherie de Burgos S. C.

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Burgos — Interpretation of Article 5(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21) — Block exemption — Distortions of competition not exempt — Conditions imposed on the buyer upon expiry of the franchise agreement — Concept of ‘premises and land from which the buyer has operated during the contract period’

Operative part of the order

Article 5(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) [EC] to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, must be interpreted as meaning that the words ‘premises and land from which the buyer has operated during the contract period’ refers only to the place from which the contract goods or services are offered for sale and not to the whole of the territory in which those goods or services may be sold under a franchise agreement.


(1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.