do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-716/13: Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Harry’s New York Bar v OHIM — Harrys Pubar (HARRY’S BAR)
Date: 2013-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014112EN.01003801.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/38





Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Harry’s New York Bar v OHIM — Harrys Pubar (HARRY’S BAR)
(Case T-716/13)
2014/C 112/50
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden)

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 given in joined Cases R 946/2012-1 and R 995/2012-1.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HARRY’S BAR’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 3 378 031

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registrations Nos 356 009, 320 026, 315 142, 55 6513-1066 for goods and services in Classes 25 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part in Case R 995/2012-1 and dismissed the appeal in Case R 946/2012-1

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 4 CTMR.
Case C-690/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Thrakis (Greece) lodged on 27 December 2013 — Trapeza Eurobank Ergasias A.E. v Agrotiki Trapeza tis Ellados (A.T.E.), Pavlos Sidiropoulos
Date: 2013-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, financial institution, institution of public utility








C_2014078EN.01000501.xml










15.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Thrakis (Greece) lodged on 27 December 2013 — Trapeza Eurobank Ergasias A.E. v Agrotiki Trapeza tis Ellados (A.T.E.), Pavlos Sidiropoulos
(Case C-690/13)
2014/C 78/09
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Efetio Thrakis

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Trapeza Eurobank Ergasias A.E.

Respondents: Agrotiki Trapeza tis Ellados (A.T.E.), Pavlos Sidiropoulos

Questions referred







1.








(a)


Do the substantive and procedural privileges conferred upon ‘A.T.E. A.E.’ by Articles 12 and 13(1) of Law 4332/1929, in conjunction with Article 26(1) of Law 1914/1990, fall within the scope of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?










(b)


Does the same restriction apply even if it is assumed that ‘A.T.E. A.E.’ continues to engage in activity of ‘public benefit’ under its statutes?














2.


If the answers to questions ‘1.a’ and ‘1.b’ are in the affirmative, should Greece have observed the procedure prescribed by Article 108(3) of that Treaty in order for the privileges in question to remain into force?










3.


In the instance in question, must this court not apply Articles 12 and 13(1) of Law 4332/1929 inasmuch as they may be contrary to Articles 107(1) and 108(3) TFEU?
Case T-718/13: Action brought on 27 December 2013 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)
Date: 2013-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, telecommunications industry, trade-mark law








C_2014071EN.01002401.xml










8.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/24






Action brought on 27 December 2013 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)
(Case T-718/13)
(2014/C 71/44)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: The Directv Group, Inc. (El Segundo, United States of America) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonization 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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2013 given in Case R 1812/2012-2 and accordingly acknowledge the validity of the contested trade mark.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘DIRECTV’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 1 163 138

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked partially the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and revoked the Community trade mark in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15 CTMR
Case T-717/13: Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Chair Entertainment Group v OHIM — Libelle (SHADOW COMPLEX)
Date: 2013-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2014071EN.01002301.xml










8.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/23






Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Chair Entertainment Group v OHIM — Libelle (SHADOW COMPLEX)
(Case T-717/13)
(2014/C 71/43)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Chair Entertainment Group LLC (Utah, United States of America) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Libelle AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

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 1 October 2013 given in Case R 776/2011-2;










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SHADOW COMPLEX’ for goods and services in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 8 235 434

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘DBShadow’ for goods and services in Classes 9 et 42 — Community trade mark registration No 1 457 944, the word mark ‘BusinessShadow’ for goods and services in Classes 9 et 42 — Community trade mark registration No 3 749 439, the German word mark ‘BusinessShadow’ for goods and services in Classes 9 et 42 and the German word mark ‘FSShadow’ for goods and services in Classes 9 et 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR
Case T-707/13: Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Steinbeck v OHIM — Alfred Sternjakob (BE HAPPY)
Date: 2013-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2014061EN.01001501.xml










1.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/15





Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Steinbeck v OHIM — Alfred Sternjakob (BE HAPPY)
(Case T-707/13)
2014/C 61/26
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Steinbeck GmbH (Fulda, Germany) (represented by: M. Heinrich and M. Fischer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG (Frankenthal, Germany)

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 17 October 2013 in Case R 31/2013-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘BE HAPPY’ for goods in Classes 9, 11 and 18 — Community trade mark No 8 666 083

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of that regulation

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case C-686/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 27 December 2013 — X AB v Skatteverket
Date: 2013-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: basis of tax assessment, capital gains tax, financial loss, head office, tax relief








C_2014071EN.01001102.xml










8.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 27 December 2013 — X AB v Skatteverket
(Case C-686/13)
(2014/C 71/19)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X AB

Defendant: Skatteverket

Question referred

Do Article 49 TFEU and Article 63 TFEU preclude national legislation according to which the Member State of domicile does not grant a deduction for a currency loss which is an integral part of a capital gain or capital loss on holdings for business purposes in a company which is domiciled in another Member State, where the Member State of domicile applies a system under which capital gains and capital losses on such assets are wholly exempt from taxation?
Case T-697/13: Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Kinnarps v OHIM (MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK)
Date: 2013-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, furniture industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014093EN.01002503.xml










29.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/25





Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Kinnarps v OHIM (MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK)
(Case T-697/13)
2014/C 93/44
Language in which the application was lodged: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: Kinnarps AB (Falköping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2013 in Case R 2272/2012-2;










—


Declare that the applicant’s trade mark MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK, in respect of the goods and services claimed in the case, has the necessary distinctive character for registration as a Community trade mark;










—


Order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings before both the General Court and OHIM.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark applied for: Word mark ‘MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 20, 35 and 42 — application for registration of a Community trade mark No 10 887 982

Decision of the Examiners: Rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Failure to have regard to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case C-685/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 27 December 2013 — Belgacom SA v Commune de Fléron
Date: 2013-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: local government, local tax, mobile phone, telecommunications industry








C_2014061EN.01000601.xml










1.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 27 December 2013 — Belgacom SA v Commune de Fléron
(Case C-685/13)
2014/C 61/09
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Belgacom SA

Defendant: Commune de Fléron

Question referred

Do the provisions of the Authorisation Directive, (1) and in particular Article 13 thereof pertaining to the methods of imposition of fees for rights of use for radiofrequencies and rights to install facilities on or under public or private property, preclude the imposition on mobile telecommunications operators by the communal administrative authorities of a Member State, by way of a municipal regulation, of a tax comprising a single and flat-rate fee of EUR 2 500 per pylon or mast, the fact giving rise to which is the presence of such pylon or mast on the territory of the commune on 1 January of the year of assessment, in the case where that tax does not represent remuneration and is motivated by budgetary and environmental objectives?


(1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21).
Case T-709/13: Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Steinbeck v OHIM — Alfred Sternjakob (BE HAPPY)
Date: 2013-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2014061EN.01001502.xml










1.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/15





Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Steinbeck v OHIM — Alfred Sternjakob (BE HAPPY)
(Case T-709/13)
2014/C 61/27
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Steinbeck GmbH (Fulda, Germany) (represented by: M. Heinrich and M. Fischer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG (Frankenthal, Germany)

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 17 October 2013 in Case R 32/2013-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘BE HAPPY’ for goods in Classes 16, 21, 28 and 30 — Community trade mark No 5 310 057

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of that regulation

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009