do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-683/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho da Covilhã (Portugal) lodged on 23 December 2013 — Pharmacontinente Saúde e Higiene SA and Others v Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho (ACT)
Date: 2013-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, data protection, data transmission, fine, personal data, working time








C_2014052EN.01003102.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/31





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho da Covilhã (Portugal) lodged on 23 December 2013 — Pharmacontinente Saúde e Higiene SA and Others v Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho (ACT)
(Case C-683/13)
2014/C 52/57
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal do Trabalho da Covilhã

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Pharmacontinente Saúde e Higiene SA, Domingos Sequeira de Almeida, Luis Mesquita Soares Moutinho, Rui Teixeira Soares de Almeida, André de Carvalho e Sousa

Defendant: Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho (ACT)

Questions referred







(a)


Is Article 2 of Directive 95/46/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘personal data’ covers the record of working time, that is to say, the indication, in relation to each worker, of the times at which working hours begin and end, together with the related breaks and intervals?










(b)


If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative, is the Portuguese State obliged, under Article 17(1) of Directive 95/46/EC, to adopt appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect personal data against accidental or unlawful destruction or accidental loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure or access, in particular where processing involves the transmission of data over a network?










(c)


If the answer to Question (b) is in the affirmative, if ever the Member State does not adopt any measure pursuant to Article 17(1) of Directive 95/46/EC and if an employer, as a controller of such data, adopts a system of restricted access to those data which does not allow automatic access by the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions, is the principle of the primacy of European Union law to be interpreted as meaning that the Member State cannot penalise the employer for such behaviour?










(d)


If the answer to Question (c) is in the negative, while it has not been shown or argued that the information from the record has not, in the present case, been altered, is the requirement that a record be immediately available, enabling all parties to the employment relationship to have general access to the data, proportionate?






(1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31).
Case T-714/13: Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Gold Crest v OHIM (MIGHTY BRIGHT)
Date: 2013-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014061EN.01001702.xml










1.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/17





Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Gold Crest v OHIM (MIGHTY BRIGHT)
(Case T-714/13)
2014/C 61/31
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Gold Crest LLC (Santa Barbara, United States) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2013 given in Case R 2038/2012-2;










—


Declare the Community trade mark applied for eligible for registration;










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MIGHTY BRIGHT’ for goods and services in Class 11 — Community trade mark application No 10 853 141

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 65(2) CTMR.
Case T-710/13: Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel — OHIM — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel)
Date: 2013-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aid to disadvantaged groups, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014061EN.01001601.xml










1.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/16





Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel — OHIM — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel)
(Case T-710/13)
2014/C 61/28
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: T. Koerl, E. Celenk and S. Vollmer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tiertafel Deutschland eV (Rathenow, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 in Case R 1074/2012-4;










—


order the defendant 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 ‘Tafel’ for services in Classes 39 and 45 — Community trade mark No 8 985 541.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Tiertafel Deutschland e.V.

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and the applicant’s bad faith under Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and mark declared invalid.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-684/13: Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Bolloré (BLUECO)
Date: 2013-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2014052EN.01004101.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/41





Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Bolloré (BLUECO)
(Case T-684/13)
2014/C 52/78
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Pechan and S. Körber, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bolloré SA (Érgue Gaberic, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2013 in Case R 2029/2012-1 and alter it to the effect that the appeal is well founded and the opposition is therefore to be rejected in its entirety;










—


Order OHIM and Bolloré SA, should the latter intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘BLUECO’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark application No 9 724 675

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bolloré SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘BLUECAR’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark No 4 597 621

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case F-126/13: Action brought on 23 December 2013 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2013-12-23
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: enforcement of ruling, family benefit, redemption








C_2014045EN.01004702.xml










15.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/47





Action brought on 23 December 2013 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-126/13)
2014/C 45/89
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the PMO to pay the family allowances directly to the mother of the applicant’s daughter, with retroactive effect to 1 October 2012

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 21 May 2013 by which the PMO informs the applicant of its decision to pay the family allowances, including the household allowance, the dependent child allowance and the education allowance, directly to the mother of his daughter, retroactively from 1 October 2012;










—


Annul the decision adopted on 23 September 2013 rejecting the applicant’s claim;










—


Order the Commission to pay the applicant the entirely of the sums due in respect of family allowances unduly withheld since 1 October 2012 until the date of execution of the judgment to be give in this case, together with late-payment interest calculated at the rate of 4 % per annum from 1 October 2012 until payment in full;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-685/13: Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Blue Coat Systems (BLUECO)
Date: 2013-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, energy industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014052EN.01004102.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/41





Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Blue Coat Systems (BLUECO)
(Case T-685/13)
2014/C 52/79
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Pechan and S. Körber, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (Sunnyvale, United States of America)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2013 in Case R 2028/2012-1 and alter it to the effect that the appeal is well founded and the opposition is therefore to be rejected in its entirety;










—


Order OHIM and Blue Coast Systems, Inc., should the latter intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘BLUECO’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 9 724 675

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Blue Coat Systems, Inc.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘BLUE COAT’ for goods in Class 9 and services in Classes 38 and 42 — Community trade mark No 3 016 235

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case C-681/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 23 December 2013 — Diageo Brands BV v Simiramida-04 EOOD
Date: 2013-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, indemnification, legal expenses, mutual recognition principle, trade-mark law








C_2014071EN.01001101.xml










8.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 23 December 2013 — Diageo Brands BV v Simiramida-04 EOOD
(Case C-681/13)
(2014/C 71/18)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Diageo Brands BV

Respondent: Simiramida-04 EOOD

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 34(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that that ground for refusal is also applicable in a case where the decision of the court of the Member State of origin is manifestly contrary to European Union law, and that fact has been recognised by that court?










2.








(a)


Must Article 34(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that successful reliance on that ground for refusal is precluded by the fact that the party which has recourse to that ground for refusal failed to make use of the legal remedies available in the Member State of origin of the decision?










(b)


If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative, would the position be different if the utilisation of the legal remedies in the Member State of origin of the decision was pointless because it has to be assumed that it would not have led to any different decision?














3.


Must Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC (2) be interpreted as meaning that that provision is also applicable to the costs incurred by the parties in the context of proceedings for damages brought in a Member State if the claim and the defence relate to the alleged liability of the defendant by reason of the seizures which it made and the notices which it served with a view to enforcing its trade mark rights in another Member State, and in that connection a question arises concerning the recognition in the former Member State of a decision of the court in the latter Member State?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).