do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-321/10: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — SA.PAR. v OHIM — Salini Costruttori (GRUPPO SALINI) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark GRUPPO SALINI — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-07-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013252EN.01002902.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/29





Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — SA.PAR. v OHIM — Salini Costruttori (GRUPPO SALINI)
(Case T-321/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark GRUPPO SALINI - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2013/C 252/46
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: SA.PAR. Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bussoletti and G. Petrocchi, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Mannucci and P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Salini Costruttori SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: C. Bellomunno and S. Troilo, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 April 2010 (Case R 219/2009-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Salini Costruttori SpA and SA.PAR. Srl

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders SA.PAR. Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 701/2013 of 11 July 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (East Kent Goldings (PDO))
Date: 2013-07-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, designation of origin, hops, product designation








L_2013199EN.01000101.xml










24.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 199/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 701/2013
of 11 July 2013
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (East Kent Goldings (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2).












(2)


Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom’s application to register the name ‘East Kent Goldings’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3).












(3)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘East Kent Goldings’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 11 July 2013.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Dacian CIOLOȘ
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(3)  
            OJ C 285, 21.9.2012, p. 14.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.8.   Other products of Annex I to the Treaty (spices, etc.)

UNITED KINGDOM
East Kent Goldings (PDO)
Case T-459/07: Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics v Council (Dumping — Imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in China, Vietnam, Pakistan and the Philippines — Expiry of anti-dumping measures — Review — Like product — Data used to determine the injury — Analogue country — Community interest — Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2013-07-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Pakistan, Philippines, Viet Nam, anti-dumping measure, import (EU), lighting equipment, originating product, rights of the defence








C_2013252EN.01002801.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/28





Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics v Council
(Case T-459/07) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in China, Vietnam, Pakistan and the Philippines - Expiry of anti-dumping measures - Review - Like product - Data used to determine the injury - Analogue country - Community interest - Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence)
2013/C 252/43
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd (Hangzhou, China) (represented by: M. Gambardella and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially by J.-P. Hix, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, and subsequently G. Berrisch, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and K. Talabér-Ritz, Agents); and by Osram GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Bierwagen, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines (OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by Osram GmbH;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.
Case C-601/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — French Republic v European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeal — Action for annulment — Protection against transmissible spongiform encephalopathies — Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 — Regulation authorising less restrictive measures of surveillance and eradication than those previously laid down — Precautionary principle — Level of protection of human health — New elements capable of altering the perception of the risk — Failure to state reasons — Distortion of the facts — Error of law)
Date: 2013-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bovine spongiform encephalopathy, cattle, disease prevention, goat, health control, health risk, sheep, veterinary inspection








C_2013252EN.01001102.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/11





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — French Republic v European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(Case C-601/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Protection against transmissible spongiform encephalopathies - Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 - Regulation authorising less restrictive measures of surveillance and eradication than those previously laid down - Precautionary principle - Level of protection of human health - New elements capable of altering the perception of the risk - Failure to state reasons - Distortion of the facts - Error of law)
2013/C 252/17
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, C. Candat, R. Loosli-Surrans, G. de Bergues and S. Menez, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-257/07 France v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 of 17 June 2008 amending Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2008 L 202, p. 11) in so far as it authorises monitoring and eradication measures less restrictive than those previously prescribed for ovine and caprine flocks — Failure to state the reasons for the decision — Distortion of the facts — Incorrect legal classification of the facts — Breach of the precautionary principle

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.
Case C-412/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Development of the Community’s railways — Directive 91/440/EEC — Article 6(3) and Annex II — Directive 2001/14/EC — Article 14(2) — Independence of the body to which the exercise of essential functions is entrusted)
Date: 2013-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Luxembourg, charges for use of infrastructure, infringement of EU law, rail network, trans-European network, transport capacity, transport infrastructure








C_2013252EN.01000702.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/7





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-412/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 91/440/EEC - Article 6(3) and Annex II - Directive 2001/14/EC - Article 14(2) - Independence of the body to which the exercise of essential functions is entrusted)
2013/C 252/10
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25), as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 1), and Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29) — Failure to ensure the independence of essential functions

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs






(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.
Case T-208/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM (Red shoelace end caps) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark — Red shoelace end caps — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Procedure by default)
Date: 2013-07-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013252EN.01003002.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/30





Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM (Red shoelace end caps)
(Case T-208/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark - Red shoelace end caps - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Procedure by default)
2013/C 252/49
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (Kopfing, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2012 (Case R 1552/2011-1), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a sign consisting of red shoelace end caps

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Think Schuhwerk GmbH to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.
Case T-197/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark METRO — Earlier Community figurative mark GRUPOMETROPOLIS — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to a fair hearing — Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-07-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013252EN.01003001.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/30





Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO)
(Case T-197/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark METRO - Earlier Community figurative mark GRUPOMETROPOLIS - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to a fair hearing - Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2013/C 252/48
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 2440/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.
Case C-399/13 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2013 by Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 June 2013 in Case T-93/11: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v European Commission
Date: 2013-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, trade regulations








C_2013274EN.01001301.xml










21.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/13





Appeal brought on 11 July 2013 by Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 June 2013 in Case T-93/11: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v European Commission
(Case C-399/13 P)
2013/C 274/21
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the appeal, set aside the judgment of 7 June 2013 of the General Court, and annul the Commission’s decision of 6 December 2010;










—


order the Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs for this appeal and for the action in annulment before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the General Court made three errors in law.






1.


An error in law in holding the DG Trade Vademecum on Access to Documents (the Vademecum) was not intended to produce external effects;










2.


An error in law by disregarding the presumption that the documents were intended to be seen by a large number of people;










3.


An error in law in holding in the circumstances that there was no implicit waiver of confidentiality.
Notice of open competitions
Date: 2013-07-11
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, State aid, care of people with disabilities, common market, control of State aid, large business, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2013199EN.01001201.xml










11.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 199/12





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
2013/C 199/09
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:






 


EPSO/AD/260/13 — Danish-language (DA) translators (AD 5)










 


EPSO/AD/261/13 — English-language (EN) translators (AD 5)










 


EPSO/AD/262/13 — French-language (FR) translators (AD 5)










 


EPSO/AD/263/13 — Italian-language (IT) translators (AD 5)










 


EPSO/AD/264/13 — Maltese-language (MT) translators (AD 5)










 


EPSO/AD/265/13 — Dutch-language (NL) translators (AD 5)










 


EPSO/AD/266/13 — Slovenian-language (SL) translators (AD 5)




The competition notice is published in 24 languages in Official Journal C 199 A of 11 July 2013.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/
Case C-657/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV v Bert Peelaers, Visys NV (Directives 84/450/EEC and 2006/114/EC — Misleading and comparative advertising — Definition of ‘advertising’ — Registration and use of a domain name — Use of metatags in a website’s metadata)
Date: 2013-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Internet site, advertising malpractice, comparative advertising, consumer protection, interpretation of the law








C_2013252EN.01001201.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/12





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV v Bert Peelaers, Visys NV
(Case C-657/11) (1)

(Directives 84/450/EEC and 2006/114/EC - Misleading and comparative advertising - Definition of ‘advertising’ - Registration and use of a domain name - Use of metatags in a website’s metadata)
2013/C 252/18
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV

Defendants: Bert Peelaers, Visys NV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Article 2 of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), and Article 2 of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21) — Definition of advertising — Registration and use of a domain name — Use of metatags in a website’s metadata

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 and Article 2(a) of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘advertising’, as defined by those provisions, covers, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the use of a domain name and that of metatags in a website’s metadata. By contrast, the registration of a domain name, as such, is not encompassed by that term.


(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.
Case C-393/13 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2013 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2013 in Case T-304/11 Alumina d.o.o. v Council and Commission
Date: 2013-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bosnia and Herzegovina, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), mining product, originating product, price increase, principle of legal certainty








C_2013274EN.01001001.xml










21.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/10





Appeal brought on 11 July 2013 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2013 in Case T-304/11 Alumina d.o.o. v Council and Commission
(Case C-393/13 P)
2013/C 274/17
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Alumina d.o.o., European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


dismiss the action;










—


order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs relating to the appeal and to the proceedings before the General Court





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The Council relies on a sole ground of appeal against the judgment of 30 April 2013 in Case T-304/11, by which the General Court annulled Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011 of 11 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina. (1)

The Council submits that the General Court misinterpreted the concept of ‘sales carried out in the ordinary course of trade’ as used in Article 2(1) and (6) of the Basic Regulation. (2) Specifically, the Council argues that sales may take place ‘in the ordinary course of trade’ even if the seller has increased its sale price by incorporating in that price a premium to cover the risk of non-payment or of late payment.
According to the Council, the contrary interpretation adopted by the General Court is, in addition, incompatible with the principle of legal certainty.


(1)  OJ 2011 L 125, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).