do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-427/11: Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2013 — Laboratoire Bioderma v OHIM — Cabinet Continental (BIODERMA) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark BIODERMA — No infringement of the rights of the defence — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013108EN.01002303.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/23





Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2013 — Laboratoire Bioderma v OHIM — Cabinet Continental (BIODERMA)
(Case T-427/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark BIODERMA - No infringement of the rights of the defence - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009)
2013/C 108/62
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Laboratoire Bioderma (Lyon, France) (represented by: A. Teston, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Cabinet Continental (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-C. Brun, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2011 (Case R 861/2009-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Cabinet Continental and Laboratoire Bioderma

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 February 2011 (Case R 861/2009-1) in so far as concerns dietetic substances adapted for medical use, in Class 5;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders Laboratoire Bioderma to bear its own costs and half of those incurred by OHIM and Cabinet Continental;










4.


Orders OHIM and Cabinet Continental to bear half of their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.
New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Spain, commemoration, euro, issuing of currency








C_2013050EN.01000801.xml










21.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 50/8





New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
2013/C 50/04




National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Spain

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the Community providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.
Issuing country: Spain
Subject of commemoration: UNESCO's World Natural and Cultural Heritage Sites — San Lorenzo del Escorial Monastery
Description of the design: The inner part of the coin depicts a view of the San Lorenzo del Escorial Monastery. On the upper side, in circular sense and with capital letters, the name of the issuing country ‘ESPANA’. At the right hand side, the year of issuance ‘2013’ and the mint mark.
The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.
Number of coins to be issued: 8 million
Date of issue: February 2013


(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).
Case C-332/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — ProRail NV v Xpedys NV, DB Schenker Rail Nederland NV, Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV, FAG Kugelfischer GmbH, (Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 — Cooperation in the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters — Direct taking of evidence — Designation of an expert — Task carried out partly in the Member State of the referring court and partly in another Member State)
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, proof








C_2013114EN.01001102.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/11





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — ProRail NV v Xpedys NV, DB Schenker Rail Nederland NV, Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV, FAG Kugelfischer GmbH,
(Case C-332/11) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 - Cooperation in the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters - Direct taking of evidence - Designation of an expert - Task carried out partly in the Member State of the referring court and partly in another Member State)
2013/C 114/15
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ProRail NV

Defendants: Xpedys NV, DB Schenker Rail Nederland NV, Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV, FAG Kugelfischer GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Articles 1 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 174, p. 1) and of Article 33(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Brussels I’) (OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1) — Direct taking of evidence by the requesting court — Designation of an expert and the assignment to that expert, by the courts of a Member State, of a task which must be carried out partly in the Member State of the courts in question and partly in another Member State — Whether or not the application of the mechanism provided for in Article 17 of Regulation No 1206/2001 is obligatory

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(1)(b) and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the court of one Member State, which wishes the task of taking of evidence entrusted to an expert to be carried out in another Member State, is not necessarily required to use the method of taking evidence laid down by those provisions to be able to order the taking of that evidence.


(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
Case T-122/13: Action brought on 21 February 2013 — Laboratoires Polive/OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (dodie)
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013123EN.01002001.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/20





Action brought on 21 February 2013 — Laboratoires Polive/OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (dodie)
(Case T-122/13)
2013/C 123/33
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Laboratoires Polive (Levallois Perret, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arbora & Ausonia, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision rendered by the second Board of Appeal on 28 November 2012;










—


Order the OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark (in colour) ‘dodie’, for goods in classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 037 821

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: Spanish and Portuguese trade marks of the word mark ‘DODOT’ for goods in classes 3, 5, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision, upheld the opposition and rejected the trade mark applied for in relation to certain goods in classes 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-85/11 P: Order of the General Court of 21 February 2013 — Marucccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Social security — Serious illness — Reimbursement of medical expenses — Commission decision refusing to reimburse medical expenses incurred by the appellant at the rate of 100 % — Obligation to state reasons — Article 72 of the Staff Regulations — Criteria adopted by the medical council — Opinion of the medical officer produced during the proceedings — Competence of the head of the settlements office — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, health expenditure, illness, medical diagnosis, redemption, social security








C_2013108EN.01002502.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/25





Order of the General Court of 21 February 2013 — Marucccio v Commission
(Case T-85/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Social security - Serious illness - Reimbursement of medical expenses - Commission decision refusing to reimburse medical expenses incurred by the appellant at the rate of 100 % - Obligation to state reasons - Article 72 of the Staff Regulations - Criteria adopted by the medical council - Opinion of the medical officer produced during the proceedings - Competence of the head of the settlements office - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
2013/C 108/66
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 23 November 2010 in Case F-65/09 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.
Case C-243/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium)) — RVS Levensverzekeringen NV v Belgische Staat (Direct life assurance — Annual tax on assurance transactions — Directive 2002/83/EC — Articles 1(1)(g) and 50 — Definition of ‘Member State of the commitment’ — Assurance undertaking established in the Netherlands — Policyholder having taken out an assurance contract in the Netherlands and transferred his habitual residence to Belgium after the contract was concluded — Freedom to provide services)
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Netherlands, contract, freedom to provide services, insurance company, interpretation of the law, life assurance, tax system








C_2013114EN.01001001.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/10





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium)) — RVS Levensverzekeringen NV v Belgische Staat
(Case C-243/11) (1)

(Direct life assurance - Annual tax on assurance transactions - Directive 2002/83/EC - Articles 1(1)(g) and 50 - Definition of ‘Member State of the commitment’ - Assurance undertaking established in the Netherlands - Policyholder having taken out an assurance contract in the Netherlands and transferred his habitual residence to Belgium after the contract was concluded - Freedom to provide services)
2013/C 114/12
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: RVS Levensverzekeringen NV

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 50 of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1) — National rule subjecting insurance transactions to an annual tax when the risk is situated in Belgium, either because the natural person insured is habitually resident there or because the legal person insured is established there — Assurance undertaking established in the Netherlands, without any presence in Belgium except for one of its policyholders, who moved to Belgium after the contract was concluded — Place of taxation — Article 49 and Article 56 TFEU — Restrictions

Operative part of the judgment

Article 50 of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from collecting an indirect tax on life assurance premiums paid by policyholders who are natural persons having their habitual residence in that Member State, when the assurance contracts concerned were taken out in another Member State in which those policyholders had their habitual residence on the date the contracts were taken out.


(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
Case C-561/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Alicante — Spain) — Fédération Cynologique Internationale v Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza (Community trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9(1) — Concept of ‘third party’ — Proprietor of a later Community trade mark)
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, Spain, domestic animal, interpretation of the law, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013114EN.01001502.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/15





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Alicante — Spain) — Fédération Cynologique Internationale v Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza
(Case C-561/11) (1)

(Community trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9(1) - Concept of ‘third party’ - Proprietor of a later Community trade mark)
2013/C 114/21
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fédération Cynologique Internationale

Defendant: Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Alicante — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Infringement or threat of infringement of a Community trade mark — Exclusive right conferred by a Community trade mark — Meaning of third party

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the exclusive right of the proprietor of a Community trade mark to prohibit all third parties from using, in the course of trade, signs identical with or similar to its trade mark extends to a third-party proprietor of a later registered Community trade mark, without the need for that latter mark to have been declared invalid beforehand.


(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
Case T-444/10: Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2013 — Esge v OHIM — De’Longhi Benelux (KMIX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark KMIX — Earlier Community word mark BAMIX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013108EN.01002103.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/21





Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2013 — Esge v OHIM — De’Longhi Benelux (KMIX)
(Case T-444/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark KMIX - Earlier Community word mark BAMIX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2013/C 108/57
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Esge AG (Bussnang, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: De’Longhi Benelux SA, formerly Kenwood Appliances Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Strickland, Solicitor, and L. St. Ville, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2010 (Case R 1249/2009-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Esge AG and Kenwood Appliances Luxembourg SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Esge AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
Case T-109/13: Action brought on 21 February 2013 — Othman v Council
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, human rights, international sanctions








C_2013129EN.01002301.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/23





Action brought on 21 February 2013 — Othman v Council
(Case T-109/13)
2013/C 129/46
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Razan Othman (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;










—


consequently, annul Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 and Regulation No 1117/2012 (EU) of 29 November 2012 and their subsequent implementing measures, in so far as they concern the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in the context of Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council.
 (1)



(1)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 13.
Case F-113/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post — Action lodged out of time — Manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: deadline for payment, limitation of legal proceedings, remuneration of work








C_2013114EN.01004603.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/46





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
(Case F-113/11) (1)

(Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings - Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post - Action lodged out of time - Manifestly inadmissible)
2013/C 114/70
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dala Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Civil service — Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the applicant’s claim for payment of arrears of remuneration owing for the month of August 2010.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012, p. 69.