do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-99/13: Action brought on 20 February 2013 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (Camomilla)
Date: 2013-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, luxury products industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013141EN.01002001.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/20





Action brought on 20 February 2013 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (Camomilla)
(Case T-99/13)
2013/C 141/36
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Camomilla SpA (Buccinasco, Italy)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 November 2012 in Case R 1617/2011-1 by finding that the absolute ground for invalidity under Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — based on the bad faith of the proprietor of the Community trade mark at the time when the application was filed — and the relative ground for invalidity under Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of the regulation, are made out;










—


In the alternative, and only in the event that the Court should consider the documents produced at the time of the appeal before the Board of Appeal inadmissible and should consider those documents essential for the purposes of granting the appeal, annul the contested decision on the ground of failure to have regard to the right to be heard and infringement of the rights of the defence and refer the case back to the Cancellation Division for a decision on the substance;










—


In any event, call upon OHIM to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the trade mark proprietor to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: figurative mark containing the word element ‘Camomilla’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 21, 24 and 28 — Community trade mark No 3 158 196

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Camomilla SpA

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘CAMOMILLA’ for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b), of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-224/11: Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Caventa v OHIM — Anson’s Herrenhaus (BERG) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BERG — Earlier Community word mark Christian Berg — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2013108EN.01002201.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/22





Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Caventa v OHIM — Anson’s Herrenhaus (BERG)
(Case T-224/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark BERG - Earlier Community word mark Christian Berg - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2013/C 108/58
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Caventa AG (Rekingen, Switzerland) (represented initially by: J. Krenzel, then by T. Stein and A. Segler, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: R. Manea, then by D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Anson's Herrenhaus KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: O Löffel and P. Lange, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2011 (Case R 1494/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Anson’s Herrenhaus KG and Caventa AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Caventa AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.
Case C-86/13: Action brought on 20 February 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
Date: 2013-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, contract terms, equal treatment, infringement of EU law, remuneration of work, servant (EU)








C_2013123EN.01001202.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/12





Action brought on 20 February 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
(Case C-86/13)
2013/C 123/19
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, D. Martin and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Council’s decision of 20 December 2012 by which it refused to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting, with the effect from 1 July 2012, the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto;










—


order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission relies on three pleas in law in support of its action.
The first plea alleges infringement of Article 65 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1, 3 and 10 of Annex XI to the Regulations, in that, in the absence of any proposal by the Commission to apply the exception clause in Article 10 of Annex XI, the Council was required to adopt, before 31 December 2012, the proposal for the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union submitted by the Commission, in accordance with Article 3 of Annex XI. The Council does not have the authority to adopt a decision applying, in essence, Article 10, without an appropriate Commission proposal or without the participation of the Parliament, its co-legislator under Article 10.
The second plea alleges infringement of Article 64 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1 and 3 of Annex XI thereto, in that the Council failed to adopt, even though required to do so, the new correction coefficients to be applied to remuneration and pensions, which were proposed by the Commission in order to ensure equal treatment as between officials and pensioners irrespective of their place of employment or residence, as the case may be.
The third plea alleges complete failure to state reasons, since the Council simply stated that the qualified majority necessary for the adoption the Commission’s proposal in accordance with Article 3 of Annex XI was not reached, without explaining why it had disregarded the proposal. This plea is directed at both the adjustment of remuneration and pensions and the adoption of new correction coefficients.
Case T-631/11: Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Caventa v OHIM — Anson’s Herrenhaus (B BERG) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark B BERG — Earlier Community word mark Christian Berg — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2013108EN.01002401.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/24





Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Caventa v OHIM — Anson’s Herrenhaus (B BERG)
(Case T-631/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark B BERG - Earlier Community word mark Christian Berg - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2013/C 108/63
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Caventa AG (Rekingen, Switzerland) (represented initially by: J. Krenzel, then by T. Stein and A. Segler, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Anson's Herrenhaus KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: O Löffel and P. Lange, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2011 (Case R 2014/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Anson’s Herrenhaus KG and Caventa AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Caventa AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.
Case T-104/13: Action brought on 20 February 2013 — Toshiba v Commission
Date: 2013-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: fine, multinational enterprise, restriction on competition, screen








C_2013114EN.01004101.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/41





Action brought on 20 February 2013 — Toshiba v Commission
(Case T-104/13)
2013/C 114/63
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Toshiba Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. MacLennan, Solicitor, J. Jourdan, A. Schulz and P. Berghe, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Article 1(2)(d) of the Commission’s Decision of 5 December 2012, in Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes;










—


Annul Article 1(2)(e) of the Commission’s Decision of 5 December 2012, in Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes;










—


Annul Article 2(2)(g) of the contested decision or alternatively reduce the fine as the General Court finds appropriate;










—


Annul Article 2(2)(h) of the contested decision or alternatively annul Article 2(2)(h) in so far as Toshiba is held jointly and severally held liable or alternatively reduce the fine as the General Court finds appropriate;










—


Make such other order as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case;










—


Award the applicant its costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in finding Toshiba Corporation liable for the infringement of Article 101 TFEU for the period 16 May 2000 until 11 April 2002.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in finding Toshiba Corporation liable for the infringement of Article 101 TFEU for the period 12 April 2002 until 31 March 2003;










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in finding Toshiba Corporation liable for the infringement of Article 101 TFEU for the period 1 April 2003 until 12 June 2006.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in finding Toshiba Corporation jointly and severally liable for Matsushita Toshiba Picture Display Co., Ltd. ’s (‘MTPD’) participation in the infringement for the period 1 April 2003 until 12 June 2006.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative to the fourth plea, that the contested decision erred in finding MTPD liable for participating in the infringement for the period 1 April 2003 until 12 June 2006.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in imposing a fine in Articles 2(2)(g) and 2(2)(h) or, in the alternative, erred in calculating these fines.
Case T-100/13: Action brought on 20 February 2013 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (CAMOMILLA)
Date: 2013-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, luxury products industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013141EN.01002101.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/21





Action brought on 20 February 2013 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (CAMOMILLA)
(Case T-100/13)
2013/C 141/37
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Camomilla SpA (Buccinasco, Italy)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 November 2012 in Case R 1616/2011-1 by finding that the absolute ground for invalidity under Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — based on the bad faith of the proprietor of the Community trade mark at the time when the application was filed — and the relative ground for invalidity under Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of the regulation, are made out;










—


In the alternative, and only in the event that the Court should consider the documents produced at the time of the appeal before the Board of Appeal inadmissible and should consider those documents essential for the purposes of granting the appeal, annul the contested decision on the ground of failure to have regard to the right to be heard and infringement of the rights of the defence and refer the case back to the Cancellation Division for a decision on the substance;










—


In any event, call upon OHIM to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the trade mark proprietor to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: word mark ‘CAMOMILLA’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30 and 33 — Community trade mark No 7 077 55

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Camomilla SpA

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘CAMOMILLA’ for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Cancellation Division: application rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b), of Regulation No 207/2009
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-02-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013049EN.01000801.xml










20.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/8





Euro exchange rates (1)

19 February 2013
2013/C 49/05

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3349




JPY


Japanese yen


124,81




DKK


Danish krone


7,4599




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86310




SEK


Swedish krona


8,4483




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2332




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,4170




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,434




HUF


Hungarian forint


290,79




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6997




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1679




RON


Romanian leu


4,3786




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3720




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2905




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3504




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,3517




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5803




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6530




KRW


South Korean won


1 442,08




ZAR


South African rand


11,8713




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,3356




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5890




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 956,12




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1440




PHP


Philippine peso


54,266




RUB


Russian rouble


40,2100




THB


Thai baht


39,873




BRL


Brazilian real


2,6169




MXN


Mexican peso


16,9185




INR


Indian rupee


72,5450






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-527/11: Order of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Luxembourg Patent Co. v OHIM — DETEC (FIREDETEC)
Date: 2013-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, fire protection, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013108EN.01003702.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/37





Order of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Luxembourg Patent Co. v OHIM — DETEC (FIREDETEC)
(Case T-527/11) (1)

2013/C 108/88
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.
Case T-369/00: Order of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Département du Loiret v Commission (State aid — Land sale price — Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market — Agreement by which all the assets of the recipient of the aid were transferred to the authorities which granted the aid — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2013-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, State aid, common market, price of land, reimbursement of aid, selling price








C_2013108EN.01002501.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/25





Order of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Département du Loiret v Commission
(Case T-369/00) (1)

(State aid - Land sale price - Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market - Agreement by which all the assets of the recipient of the aid were transferred to the authorities which granted the aid - No need to adjudicate)
2013/C 108/65
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Département du Loiret (France) (represented by: A. Carnelutti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and J. Flett, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the state aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1)

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


The Département du Loiret shall pay the costs before the Court of Justice and the General Court.






(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2001.
Case T-241/09: Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Nikolaou v Court of Auditors (Non-contractual liability — Court of Auditors — Conduct of internal investigations — Personal data — Illegality — Causal link — Limitation period)
Date: 2013-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contractual liability, indemnification, personal data








C_2013101EN.01001602.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/16





Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Nikolaou v Court of Auditors
(Case T-241/09) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Court of Auditors - Conduct of internal investigations - Personal data - Illegality - Causal link - Limitation period)
2013/C 101/34
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Kalliopi Nikolaou (Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and G. Douka, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: T. Kennedy and J.-M. Stenier, Agents, and by P. Tridimas)

Re:

Action for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of irregularities and infringements of European Union law that the Court of Auditors allegedly committed in the context of an internal investigation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Kalliopi Nikolaou to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-02-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Alsace, Finland, France, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, environmental protection, mass media








C_2013049EN.01000501.xml










20.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/5





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 49/03






Date of adoption of the decision


12.1.2011




Reference number of State Aid


SA.30113 (N 715/09)




Member State


France




Region


Alsace




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Projet de construction d'une chaufferie géothermique sur le site industriel de Beinheim




Legal basis


Délibération no 09-5-12 du conseil d'administration de l'ADEME du 7 octobre 2009




Type of measure


Individual aid




Objective


Environmental protection




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 25,3 million




Intensity


60 %




Duration (period)


2010-2020




Economic sectors


Manufacturing industry




Name and address of the granting authority







Agence de l’environnement et de la maîtrise de l’énergie




20 avenue du Grésillé




BP 90406




49004 Angers Cedex 01




FRANCE








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm






Date of adoption of the decision


4.7.2012




Reference number of State Aid


SA.34885 (12/N)




Member State


Finland




Region


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Aid for newspapers — prolongation




Legal basis


389/2008 Valtioneuvoston sanomalehdistön tuesta antama asetus; Statsrådets förordning om stöd för tidningspressen (Government Decree on granting subsidies to newspapers)




Type of measure


Aid scheme




Objective


Sectoral development




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Annual budget: EUR 0,5 million




Intensity


40 %




Duration (period)


1.12.2013-31.12.2018




Economic sectors


Media




Name and address of the granting authority







Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö




Kommunikationsministeriet




Eteläesplanadi 16–18




Helsinki




SUOMI/FINLAND








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm