do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-400/13: Action brought on 5 August 2013 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA)
Date: 2013-08-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetics industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013298EN.01000902.xml










12.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 298/9





Action brought on 5 August 2013 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA)
(Case T-400/13)
2013/C 298/16
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cosmetica Cabinas, SL (El Masnou, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 6 June 2013 given in Case R 1643/2012-1;










—


Award the applicant the cost of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘AINHOA’ — Community trade mark registration No 2 720 811

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The cancellation applicant relied on Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and/or 8(5), in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
Case C-439/13 P: Appeal brought on 5 August 2013 by Elitaliana SpA against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2013 in Case T-213/12, Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo
Date: 2013-08-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU military mission, Kosovo, award of contract, equal treatment, helicopter, indemnification, invitation to tender, rights of the defence








C_2013304EN.01000601.xml










19.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/6





Appeal brought on 5 August 2013 by Elitaliana SpA against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2013 in Case T-213/12, Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo
(Case C-439/13 P)
2013/C 304/11
Language of the procedure: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Elitaliana SpA (represented by: R. Colagrande, avvocato)

Other party to the procedure: Eulex Kosovo

Form of order sought







—


Set aside in its entirety the order [of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2013 in Case T-213/12 Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo;]










—


Consequently, if the state of the proceedings so permits, issue a final decision upholding the application at first instance seeking (a) the annulment of the measures adopted by Eulex — the content and date of which are unknown to the applicant — which resulted in the award of the contract in the tendering procedure ‘EuropeAid/131516/D/SER/XK — Helicopter Support to the EULEX mission in Kosovo (PROC/272/11)’ to Starlite Aviation Operations, notified by Eulex by letter of 29 March 2012, and all preliminary, consequential and connected measures, in particular, if necessary, Note 2012-DAS-0392 of 17 April 2012, by which Eulex refused to grant the applicant access to the tendering documents requested on 2 April 2012; (b) an order directing Eulex to make good the loss suffered by applicant (by ordering specific performance or payment of a commensurate amount in compensation) as set out at paragraphs 37 et seq. of the application made to the General Court; (c) an order directing Eulex to pay the costs;










—


In the alternative, as a result of such annulment, if the state of the proceedings so permits, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law by failing to find that Eulex is a body of the European Union for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU and by equating Eulex to the delegations. Further, the General Court should have recognised the existence of an excusable error on the substance.
Those errors of law resulted in an infringement of the principle of effective judicial protection which is essential to ensure the full protection of the rights of the defence and, by corollary, the more general principle of equality.
Case C-441/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 5 August 2013 — Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH
Date: 2013-08-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, Internet site, copyright, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction








C_2013313EN.01001001.xml










26.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 5 August 2013 — Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH
(Case C-441/13)
2013/C 313/18
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pez Hejduk

Defendant: EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 5(3) 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 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in a dispute concerning an infringement of rights related to copyright which is alleged to have been committed in that a photograph was kept accessible on a website, the website being operated under the top-level domain of a Member State other than that in which the proprietor of the right is domiciled, there is jurisdiction only






—


in the Member State in which the alleged infringer is established; and










—


in the Member State(s) to which the website, according to its content, is directed?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.