do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-298/13: Action brought on 3 June 2013 — LemonAid Beverages/OHIM — Pret a Manger (Europe) (Lemonaid)
Date: 2013-06-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013215EN.01001602.xml










27.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/16





Action brought on 3 June 2013 — LemonAid Beverages/OHIM — Pret a Manger (Europe) (Lemonaid)
(Case T-298/13)
2013/C 215/23
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: LemonAid Beverages GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Lüken and J. Natzel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prêt à Manger (Europe) Ltd (London, 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 13 March 2013 (Case R 276/2012-2) by which the Second Board of Appeal upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division to declare the CTM No 007089444 invalid with regard to the contested goods in classes 32 and 33 and the corresponding decision of the Cancellation Division of OHIM of 20 December 2011 (Case 4123 C);










—


Dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity dated 7 January 2010 against the CTM No 007089444 in its entirety;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘Lemonaid’– Community trade mark registration No 7 089 444

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Articles 53(1)(c) and 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1) in conjunction with 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-304/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timișoara (Romania) lodged on 3 June 2013 — Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Centrul Județean Timiș v Curtea de Conturi a României, Camera de Conturi a Județului Timiș
Date: 2013-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural product, aid system, common agricultural policy, debt, farmers' income, production aid








C_2014052EN.01002402.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timișoara (Romania) lodged on 3 June 2013 — Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Centrul Județean Timiș v Curtea de Conturi a României, Camera de Conturi a Județului Timiș
(Case C-304/13)
2014/C 52/43
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Timișoara

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Centrul Județean Timiș

Respondents: Curtea de Conturi a României, Camera de Conturi a Județului Timiș

Intervener: Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA)

Question referred

Do the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003, (1) in particular Articles 115 and 135 thereof, preclude a State from making the grant of a premium to a farmer subject to additional conditions, which are not laid down in that regulation, namely the condition that the farmer must ‘have no debts due in respect of the State budget and/or the local budget at the date of application for the premium’?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).
Case T-550/12: Order of the General Court of 3 June 2013 — bachmaier v OHIM — (oto-soft)
Date: 2013-06-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pastry-making, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013225EN.01008305.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/83





Order of the General Court of 3 June 2013 — bachmaier v OHIM — (oto-soft)
(Case T-550/12) (1)

2013/C 225/190
Language of the case: German
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.
Judgment of the Court of 3 June 2013 in Case E-14/12 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Principality of Liechtenstein (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfill its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Articles 31 and 36 EEA — Obligation on temporary work agencies to deposit a guarantee — Indirect and direct discrimination — Residence requirement — Justification)
Date: 2013-06-03
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Liechtenstein, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, guarantee, residence, right of establishment, temporary employment








C_2013277EN.01001101.xml










26.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/11





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 3 June 2013
in Case E-14/12
EFTA Surveillance Authority v Principality of Liechtenstein
(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfill its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Articles 31 and 36 EEA — Obligation on temporary work agencies to deposit a guarantee — Indirect and direct discrimination — Residence requirement — Justification)
2013/C 277/09
In Case E-14/12, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that by maintaining in force legislation which imposes on persons resident in Liechtenstein who are responsible for a temporary work agency the obligation to supply a guarantee of 50 000 Swiss francs, whereas the guarantee of 100 000 Swiss francs is imposed upon persons performing a similar function who are resident outside of Liechtenstein, and on agencies seeking to deliver temporary employment services cross-border, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 3 June 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Declares that, by maintaining in force legislation which imposes on persons resident in Liechtenstein who are responsible for a temporary work agency the obligation to supply a guarantee of 50 000 Swiss francs, whereas the guarantee of 100 000 Swiss francs is imposed upon persons performing a similar function who are resident outside of Liechtenstein, and on agencies seeking to deliver temporary employment services cross-border, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement.










2.


Orders Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.