do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-205/13 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2013 in Case F-100/12, Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2013-04-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: deduction at source, disability insurance, redemption








C_2013156EN.01005203.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/52





Appeal brought on 8 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2013 in Case F-100/12, Marcuccio v Commission
(Case T-205/13 P)
2013/C 156/97
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal;










—


Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those set out in Case T-203/13 P Marcuccio v Commission.
Case T-203/13 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2013 in Case F-92/12, Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2013-04-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: deduction at source, disability insurance, redemption








C_2013156EN.01005201.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/52





Appeal brought on 8 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2013 in Case F-92/12, Marcuccio v Commission
(Case T-203/13 P)
2013/C 156/95
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul in its entirety, without any exception, the order under appeal;










—


Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2013 in Case F-92/12 Marcuccio v Commission rejecting as manifestly inadmissible an action for annulment of the decision of the European Commission to withhold certain amounts from the appellant’s invalidity allowance for the months of October, November and December 2011 and for reimbursement of the sums withheld.
In the order under appeal, the Tribunal stated that the firm of the appellant’s representative which appears at the end of the document sent by fax on 5 September 2012 was not the same as the firm which appears on the application received by post on 13 September 2012.
In support of his appeal, the appellant alleges absolute failure to state reasons, by reason inter alia of failure to make preliminary inquiries, self-evident, tautologous and arbitrary reasoning, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and an error of law, by reason inter alia of manifest failure properly to appraise the facts.
Case T-206/13: Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Stance/OHIM — Pokarna (STANCE)
Date: 2013-04-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2013171EN.01003401.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/34





Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Stance/OHIM — Pokarna (STANCE)
(Case T-206/13)
2013/C 171/63
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Stance, Inc. (San Clemente, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pokarna Ltd (Secundrabad, India)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of 1 February 2013 in Case R 885/2012-5 pertaining to the opposition based on Community trademark registration No. 005 491 329 against Community trademark application No. 008 957 516‘STANCE’;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘STANCE’ for goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application 8 957 516

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 of the black and white figurative mark ‘STANZA’, for goods and services in classes 25 et 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 65, 8(1)(b), 75, 76(1), (2) and 83 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-199/13: Action brought on 8 April 2013 — DTM Ricambi v OHIM — Star (STAR)
Date: 2013-04-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, mechanical engineering, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013156EN.01005102.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/51





Action brought on 8 April 2013 — DTM Ricambi v OHIM — Star (STAR)
(Case T-199/13)
2013/C 156/94
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: DTM Ricambi Srl (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: V. Catelli, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Star SpA (Lodi, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 24 January 2013 in Case R 124/2012-1 and grant registration of the Community mark ‘STAR’, filed with No 5878038, in Classes 7, 9 and 12;










—


order Star to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant, including those relating to the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of OHIM.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘STAR’ for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 12

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Star

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘STAR’ for goods in Class 39, national and international figurative marks containing the word elements ‘STAR LODI’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 38, 39 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:







—


No likelihood of confusion










—


Dilution of the earlier mark
Case T-198/13: Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Imax/OHIM — Himax Technologies (IMAX)
Date: 2013-04-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, technology, trade-mark law








C_2013171EN.01003201.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/32





Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Imax/OHIM — Himax Technologies (IMAX)
(Case T-198/13)
2013/C 171/60
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Imax Corporation (Mississauga, Canada) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer, and K. Hughes, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Himax Technologies, Inc. (Tainan County, Taiwan)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul OHIM’s Fifth Board of Appeal’s decision of 23 January 2013 in Case R 740/2012-5; and










—


Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and, if the other party in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes, the intervener.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IMAX’ for goods in classes 9, 41 and 45 — Community trade mark registration No 9 392 556

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 registrations No 4 411 658 and No 4 411 641 of the figurative mark ‘Himax’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-171/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 8 April 2013 — Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv) v M.S. Demirci and Others
Date: 2013-04-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: additional benefit, dual nationality, foreign national, residence








C_2013178EN.01000403.xml










22.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 8 April 2013 — Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv) v M.S. Demirci and Others
(Case C-171/13)
2013/C 178/08
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv)

Respondents: M.S. Demirci, D. Cetin, A.I. Önder, R. Keskin, M. Tüle, A. Taskin

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 6(1) of Decision No 3/80, (1) having regard to Article 59 of the Additional Protocol, (2) be interpreted as precluding a legislative provision of a Member State, such as Article 4a of the TW, (3) which withdraws the supplementary benefit awarded on the basis of national legislation if the persons in receipt of that benefit no longer live in the territory of that State, even if those persons, while retaining Turkish nationality, have acquired the nationality of the host Member State?










2.


If, in answering the first question, the Court of Justice concludes that the persons concerned may rely on Article 6(1) of Decision No 3/80, but that such reliance is restricted by the effect of Article 59 of the Additional Protocol: must Article 59 of the Additional Protocol be interpreted as precluding continuation of entitlement to the supplementary benefit for Turkish nationals, such as the persons concerned, as from the point in time at which European Union nationals can no longer claim entitlement to that benefit on the basis of European Union law, even if European Union nationals retained that benefit for a longer period of time on the basis of national law?






(1)  Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families (OJ 1983 C 110, 25.4.1983, p. 60).

(2)  Additional Protocol, signed in Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 (OJ 1973 C 113, p. 18).

(3)  Toeslagenwet (Netherlands Law on supplementary benefits designed to ensure receipt of the minimum income).
Case F-32/13: Action brought on 8 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2013-04-08
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: appointment of members, indemnification








C_2013207EN.01005801.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/58





Action brought on 8 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-32/13)
2013/C 207/96
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the rejection of the application for reimbursement of the unpaid sum which the Commission ought to pay to the applicant as the severance grant.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Commission’s decision of 9 January 2013 by which it refused to grant the applicant’s application and rejected his complaint seeking to obtain reimbursement of the unpaid sum which the Commission ought to pay him because he resigned. To the extent necessary, the action also seeks annulment of the Commission’s letter of 13 April 2012 by which the Commission adopts a view for the first time relating to the applicant’s application to recalculate the amount which the Commission must pay to him;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-213/13: Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Square v OHIM — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne (SQUARE)
Date: 2013-04-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013207EN.01003602.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/36





Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Square v OHIM — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne (SQUARE)
(Case T-213/13)
2013/C 207/60
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Square, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne (Serres-Castet, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2013 in Case R 775/2012-1;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Square, Inc.

Community trade mark concerned: The international registration designating the European Union of the word mark SQUARE for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 38 — international trade mark designating the European Union No W 1 032 395

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark SQUARE-énergie for goods and services in Classes 31, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-204/13 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2013 in Case F-95/12, Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2013-04-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: deduction at source, disability insurance, redemption








C_2013156EN.01005202.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/52





Appeal brought on 8 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2013 in Case F-95/12, Marcuccio v Commission
(Case T-204/13 P)
2013/C 156/96
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commision

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal;










—


Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those set out in Case T-203/13 P Marcuccio v Commission.