do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-359/13: Action brought on 11 July 2013 — Spain Doce 13 v OHIM — Ovejero Jiménez and Becerra Guibert (VICTORIA DELEF)
Date: 2013-07-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2013252EN.01004101.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/41





Action brought on 11 July 2013 — Spain Doce 13 v OHIM — Ovejero Jiménez and Becerra Guibert (VICTORIA DELEF)
(Case T-359/13)
2013/C 252/69
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Spain Doce 13, SL (Crevillente, Spain) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gregorio Ovejero Jiménez and María Luisa Becerra Guibert (Alicante, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 April 2013 in Case R 1046/2012-5 in so far as it refuses registration of Community trade mark application No 9 522 384 in relation to the following goods and services:






—


Class 18: goods made of leather and imitations of leather not included in other classes;










—


Class 25: clothing, footwear and headgear;










—


Class 35: retail and wholesale services of clothing, footwear and accessories;














—


order OHIM to pay the costs in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Spain Doce 13, SL

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘VICTORIA DELEF’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 522 384

Proprietors of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Gregorio Ovejero Jiménez and María Luisa Becerra Guibert

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative marks containing the word element ‘VICTORIA’, ‘Victoria’ and ‘victoria’ for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-07-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013199EN.01000301.xml










11.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 199/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

10 July 2013
2013/C 199/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2813




JPY


Japanese yen


128,44




DKK


Danish krone


7,4584




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86020




SEK


Swedish krona


8,6767




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2440




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8550




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,929




HUF


Hungarian forint


294,00




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7022




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3325




RON


Romanian leu


4,4333




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4938




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3935




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3475




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,9390




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6316




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6351




KRW


South Korean won


1 456,31




ZAR


South African rand


12,8710




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8601




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5400




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 768,65




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0743




PHP


Philippine peso


55,555




RUB


Russian rouble


42,1710




THB


Thai baht


40,066




BRL


Brazilian real


2,8990




MXN


Mexican peso


16,5358




INR


Indian rupee


76,4360






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-394/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 11 July 2013 — Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí v K. B.
Date: 2013-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, France, family benefit, interpretation of the law, migrant worker, residence








C_2013260EN.01003602.xml










7.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/36





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 11 July 2013 — Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí v K. B.
(Case C-394/13)
2013/C 260/66
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí

Other party to the proceedings: Mgr. K. B.

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community be interpreted to mean that the Czech Republic is a state competent to provide a family benefit — the parental allowance — in circumstances such as those of the present case, i.e. where the applicant and her husband and child live in France, the husband works there, it is the place in which their interests are centred, and the applicant has drawn fully on the PAJE (prestation d’accueil du jeune enfant) family benefit in France?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:










2.


Should the transitional provisions of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems be interpreted to mean that they require the Czech Republic to provide the family benefit after 30 April 2010 even though the competence of a state may be affected, as of 1 May 2010, by the new definition of residence under Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Article 22 et seq.)?
If the answer to the first question is in the negative:










3.


Should Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems (in particular Article 87) be interpreted to mean that, in circumstances such as those of the present case, the Czech Republic is the state competent to provide a family benefit as of 1 May 2010?






(1)  OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.

(2)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.

(3)  OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6921 — IBM Italia/UBIS) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-07-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, economic concentration, information technology, merger control, provision of services, software








C_2013199EN.01000101.xml










11.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 199/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6921 — IBM Italia/UBIS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 199/01
On 19 June 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 32013M6921. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6873 — IntercontinentalExchange/NYSE Euronext) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-07-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Canada, Europe, United States, economic concentration, investment company, issue of securities, merger control








C_2013199EN.01000102.xml










11.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 199/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6873 — IntercontinentalExchange/NYSE Euronext)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 199/02
On 24 June 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 32013M6873. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6958 — CD&R/We Buy Any Car) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-07-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: decorative item, economic concentration, furniture industry, investment, merger control, private sector, retail trade








C_2013199EN.01001301.xml










11.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 199/13





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6958 — CD&R/We Buy Any Car)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 199/10






1.


On 4 July 2013, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which CDR Osprey (Cayman) Partners L.P. (‘CDR’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over We Buy Any Car Limited (‘WBAC’, UK), ultimately controlled by Pennine Metals B Limited, UK, by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for CD&R: a private equity investment group, controlling, among others, BCA Remarketing Ltd, a UK limited company which offers wholesale used vehicle auction services,










—


for WBAC: a UK limited company active in the used vehicle sector, offering online used vehicle purchasing services to the general public.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6958 — CD&R/We Buy Any Car, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










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