do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1255/2013 of 2 December 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for Northern Albacore in Atlantic Ocean, north of 5° N by vessels flying the flag of France
Date: 2013-12-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, France, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2013324EN.01000301.xml










5.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 324/3








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1255/2013
of 2 December 2013
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for Northern Albacore in Atlantic Ocean, north of 5° N by vessels flying the flag of France


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2013.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2013.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2013 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 2 December 2013.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Lowri EVANS
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 23, 25.1.2013, p. 54.




ANNEX






No


67/TQ40




Member State


France




Stock


ALB/AN05N




Species


Northern albacore (Thunnus alalunga)





Zone


Atlantic Ocean, north of 5° N




Closing date


18.11.2013
Case T-640/13: Action brought on 2 December 2013 — Sto v OHIM — Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding (CRETEO)
Date: 2013-12-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014039EN.01002402.xml










8.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/24





Action brought on 2 December 2013 — Sto v OHIM — Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding (CRETEO)
(Case T-640/13)
2014/C 39/43
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Sto AG (Stühlingen, Germany) (represented by: K. Kern and J. Sklepek, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding AG (Baar, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 September 2013 in Case R 905/2012-4 to the effect that the opposition is upheld to the extent put forward in the appeal and Community trade mark application No 9207085 is rejected;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding AG

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CRETEO’ for goods in Classes 1, 2, 17 and 19 — Community trade mark application No 9207085

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word marks ‘StoCretec’ and ‘STOCRETE’ for goods in Classes 1, 2, 17 and 19

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Case C-631/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat (Austria) lodged on 2 December 2013 — Arne Forsgren
Date: 2013-12-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drug surveillance, marketing standard, medicinal product, patent








C_2014061EN.01000401.xml










1.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat (Austria) lodged on 2 December 2013 — Arne Forsgren
(Case C-631/13)
2014/C 61/06
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Patent- und Markensenat

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Arne Forsgren

Defendant: Österreichisches Patentamt

Questions referred







1.


Under Article 1(b) and Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, (1) provided that the other conditions are met, may a protection certificate be granted for an active ingredient protected by a basic patent (in this case, Protein D) where that active ingredient is contained in the medicinal product (in this case, Synflorix) as part of a covalent (molecular) bond with other active ingredients but none the less retains its own effect?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:






2.1


Under Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, may a protection certificate be granted for the substance protected by the basic patent (in this case, Protein D) where that substance has a therapeutic effect of its own (in this case, as a vaccine against Haemophilus influenzae bacteria) but the authorisation of the medicinal product does not relate to that effect?










2.2


Under Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, may a protection certificate be granted for the substance protected by the basic patent (in this case, Protein D) where the authorisation describes that substance as a ‘carrier’ for the actual active ingredients (in this case, Pneumococcal polysaccharides), the carrier, as an adjuvant, enhances the effect of those substances, but that effect is not expressly mentioned in the authorisation of the medicinal product?










(1)  OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 2 December 2013 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39685(1) Fentanyl — Rapporteur: Latvia
Date: 2013-12-02
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: Latvia, dominant position, infringement of EU law, intra-EU trade, liability, parent company, pharmaceutical industry, trade agreement








C_2015142EN.01001801.xml










29.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/18





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 2 December 2013 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39685(1) Fentanyl
Rapporteur: Latvia
(2015/C 142/07)






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that the ‘co-promotion agreement’ and its addendum (the ‘agreement’) concluded by the parties had the object of restricting competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission’s draft decision as regards the conclusion that the agreement between the parties was capable of having an appreciable effect upon trade between Member States.










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that the conditions of Article 101 paragraph 3 TFEU are not met.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission’s draft decision as regards all addressees of the draft decision, specifically regarding parental liability.










5.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement.










6.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case C-629/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach (Poland) lodged on 2 December 2013 — Adarco Invest sp. z o.o established in Petrosani (Romania), Polish branch in Tarnowskie Góry
Date: 2013-12-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: branch, head office, liquidation, parent company, publication of accounts, registration of a company








C_2014071EN.01000602.xml










8.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach (Poland) lodged on 2 December 2013 — Adarco Invest sp. z o.o established in Petrosani (Romania), Polish branch in Tarnowskie Góry
(Case C-629/13)
(2014/C 71/10)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach

Party to the main proceedings


Appellant: Adarco Invest sp. z o.o established in Petrosani (Romania), Polish branch in Tarnowskie Góry

Question referred

Do Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 1 of the Eleventh Council Directive concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches opened in a Member State by certain types of company governed by the law of another State (1) preclude refusal in a Member State to remove from the Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy (commercial register) a branch of a company established in another Member State in so far as that branch has not been wound up in accordance with the procedure laid down for winding up a domestic limited liability company, whereas such a procedure does not have to be carried out to remove a branch of a domestic company from the register? In the case of domestic companies, branches are entered only in the registration of the domestic company and that company is obliged to submit a consolidated financial statement covering the parent company and its branches, whilst branches of foreign companies are registered in the Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy (commercial register) and submit to the register only a financial statement for the branch.


(1)  OJ 1989 L 395, p. 36.
Case T-642/13: Action brought on 2 December 2013 — Wolverine International v OHIM — BH Stores (cushe)
Date: 2013-12-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014085EN.01002001.xml










22.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 85/20





Action brought on 2 December 2013 — Wolverine International v OHIM — BH Stores (cushe)
(Case T-642/13)
2014/C 85/34
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Wolverine International, LP (Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands) (represented by: M. Plesser and R. Heine, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BH Stores BV (Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 September 2013 given in Case R 1269/2012-4;










—


Reject the request for a declaration of invalidity;










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘cushe’ for goods in Class 25 — International Registration No 859 087 designating the European Union

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: Likelihood of confusion pursuant to Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the contested IR designating the European Union invalid

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 57(2) and (3) CTMR
Case T-214/12: Order of the General Court of 2 December 2013 — Indesit Company v OHIM — ILVE (quadrio)
Date: 2013-12-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014045EN.01004402.xml










15.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/44





Order of the General Court of 2 December 2013 — Indesit Company v OHIM — ILVE (quadrio)
(Case T-214/12) (1)

2014/C 45/76
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.