do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark MAGNEXT and word mark MAGNEXT — Earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-02-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2014078EN.01000801.xml










15.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/8





Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT)
(Joined Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark MAGNEXT and word mark MAGNEXT - Earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2014/C 78/15
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (Zug, Switzerland) [represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer (Case T-604/11) and T. Boddien, lawyer (Case T-292/12)]

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 September 2011 (Case R 1695/2010-4) and of 24 April 2012 (Case R 1722/2011-4) concerning two sets of opposition proceedings between Diset SA and Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Orders that Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12 be joined for the purposes of judgment;










2.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 27 September 2011 (Case R 1695/2010-4) in Case T-604/11;










3.


Dismisses the action in Case T-604/11 as to the remainder;










4.


Dismisses the action in Case T-292/12;










5.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug in Case T-604/11;










6.


Orders Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM in Case T-292/12.






(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.
Case C-51/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 4 February 2014 — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung
Date: 2014-02-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: indemnification, redemption, storage cost, sugar








C_2014142EN.01001101.xml










12.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 4 February 2014 — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung
(Case C-51/14)
2014/C 142/14
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG

Respondent: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 14(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 (1) contain the definitive provisions governing the replacement of sugar for storage-cost-reimbursement purposes and is it not a precondition under that provision that the replacement sugar must be produced by another manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State?










2.


If the answer is in the affirmative: Does Article 14(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 make it a condition for claiming reimbursement of storage costs that the replacement C sugar is ‘physically replaced’ at the premises of the sugar manufacturer?










3.


If Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 (2) is applicable to the replacement of sugar: Does Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 make it a condition for claiming reimbursement of storage costs that the replacement C sugar is ‘physically replaced’ at the premises of the sugar manufacturer?










4.


In the alternative: Is Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 invalid in so far as it requires the replacement sugar to have been ‘produced by another manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State’?






(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 of 18 August 1978 laying down detailed rules for the offsetting of storage costs for sugar (OJ 1978 L 231, p. 5).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota (OJ 1981 L 262, p. 14).
Case T-76/14: Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Morningstar v Commission
Date: 2014-02-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: data transmission, dominant position, principle of proportionality, supplier








C_2014135EN.01004501.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/45






Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Morningstar v Commission
(Case T-76/14)
(2014/C 135/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Morningstar, Inc. (Chicago, United States) (represented by: S. Kinsella, K. Daly and P. Harrison, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the Commission Decision in Case COMP/39.654 — Reuters Instrument Codes, dated 20 December 2012, and published in the Official Journal on 12 November 2013 (OJ C 326, p. 4);










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs; and










—


Grant such other relief as the Court considers appropriate.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission Decision adopted in the framework of Case COMP/39.654 — Reuters Instrument Codes relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 EEA, concerning practices by Thomson Reuters giving rise to barriers to switching between consolidated real-time datafeeds. By the contested decision the Commission made binding upon Thomson Reuters certain commitments in accordance with Article 9 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and decided that there were no longer grounds for action. The applicant is a competitor of Thomson Reuters.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in adopting the Decision since the commitments manifestly fail to address the competition concerns identified in the Decision.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted ultra vires because it exceeded powers granted to it by the European Council and the Decision therefore lacks a proper legal basis.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision has failed to respect the principle of proportionality.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision breaches the Commission’s duty to state reasons.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1
Case T-73/14: Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Red Bull v OHIM — Automobili Lamborghini (Representation of two bulls)
Date: 2014-02-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014102EN.01003801.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/38





Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Red Bull v OHIM — Automobili Lamborghini (Representation of two bulls)
(Case T-73/14)
2014/C 102/59
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, J. Fuhrmann and A. Renck, lawyers, and I. Fowler, solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Automobili Lamborghini SpA (Sant’ Agata Bolognese, Italy)

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 14 November 2013 in Case R 1263/2012-1;










—


order the defendant and, in the event of the formal intervention, also the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Figurative mark representing two bulls for goods in Class 12 (Community trade mark No 3 629 342)

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: Automobili Lamborghini SpA

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application for revocation was granted

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7112 — Sigma Alimentos/Campofrio)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-02-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aluminium, economic concentration, hydrocarbon, meat processing industry, merger control, petrochemicals, telecommunications industry








C_2014032EN.01000102.xml










4.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.7112 — Sigma Alimentos/Campofrio)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 32/02
On 29 January 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7112. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.
Case T-82/14: Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Maquet (LUCEO)
Date: 2014-02-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, brand name, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014112EN.01005001.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/50





Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Maquet (LUCEO)
(Case T-82/14)
2014/C 112/64
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Henkel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maquet GmbH & Co. KG (Rastatt, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the 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 25 November 2013 in Case R 2292/2012-4 and reject the application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark LUCEO, No 8 554 974;
In the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;










—


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 LUCEO for goods in Classes, 10, 12 and 28 — Community trade mark No 8 554 974

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

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 the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009










—


Infringement of Article 74 of Regulation No 207/2009










—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-339/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Gandia Blasco v OHIM — Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture (Cuboid Armchair) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a cuboid armchair — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
Date: 2014-02-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, metal furniture, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014078EN.01000902.xml










15.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/9





Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Gandia Blasco v OHIM — Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture (Cuboid Armchair)
(Case T-339/12) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a cuboid armchair - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
2014/C 78/18
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Gandia Blasco, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: I. Sempere Massa, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture, Lda (Estarreja, Portugal) (represented by: M. Oehen Mendes and M. Paes, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 May 2012 (Case R 970/2011-3) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Gandia Blasco, SA and Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture, Lda.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Gandia Blasco, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,25 % on 1 February 2014 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-02-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest








C_2014032EN.01000801.xml










4.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/8





Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,25 % on 1 February 2014
Euro exchange rates (2)

3 February 2014
2014/C 32/05

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3498




JPY


Japanese yen


137,82




DKK


Danish krone


7,4621




GBP


Pound sterling


0,82590




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8318




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2226




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,4525




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,527




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,76




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2242




RON


Romanian leu


4,4938




TRY


Turkish lira


3,0533




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5346




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4950




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,5609




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6643




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7341




KRW


South Korean won


1 463,63




ZAR


South African rand


15,0135




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,1798




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6525




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 521,49




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5519




PHP


Philippine peso


61,267




RUB


Russian rouble


47,4730




THB


Thai baht


44,806




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2478




MXN


Mexican peso


17,9892




INR


Indian rupee


84,3710






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-57/14 P: Appeal brought on 4 February 2014 by Recaro Holding GmbH, formerly Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2013 in Case T-524/12: Recaro Holding GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2014-02-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2015127EN.01000601.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/6





Appeal brought on 4 February 2014 by Recaro Holding GmbH, formerly Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2013 in Case T-524/12: Recaro Holding GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-57/14 P)
(2015/C 127/08)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Recaro Holding GmbH, formerly Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH (represented by: J. Weiser, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
By order of 14 January 2015 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) has dismissed the appeal and ordered Recaro Holding GmbH to bear its own costs.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 4 February 2014 on the proposal for a Council decision laying down rules and procedures to enable the participation of Greenland in the Kimberley Process certification scheme (COM(2013)0429 — C7-0232/2013 — 2013/0201(CNS))
Date: 2014-02-04
Institutions: Committee on Development, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on International Trade, European Parliament
Subjects: Greenland, export (EU), export licence, export monitoring, import (EU), import licence, international trade, movement certificate, precious stones, surveillance concerning imports








C_2017093EN.01016201.xml










24.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/162





P7_TA(2014)0048
Participation of Greenland in the Kimberley Process certification scheme *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 4 February 2014 on the proposal for a Council decision laying down rules and procedures to enable the participation of Greenland in the Kimberley Process certification scheme (COM(2013)0429 — C7-0232/2013 — 2013/0201(CNS))
(Special legislative procedure — consultation)
(2017/C 093/32)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2013)0429),










—


having regard to Article 203 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0232/2013),










—


having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0466/2013),










1.


Approves the Commission proposal;










2.


Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;










3.


Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;










4.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Case T-644/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 February 2014  — Serco Belgium and Others v Commission (Interim proceedings — Public procurement — Tendering procedure — Rejection of a tender — Application for suspension of operation — Prima facie case)
Date: 2014-02-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative contract, award of contract, computer systems, consortium, invitation to tender








C_2014175EN.01004501.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/45





Order of the President of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Serco Belgium and Others v Commission
(Case T-644/13 R)
((Interim proceedings - Public procurement - Tendering procedure - Rejection of a tender - Application for suspension of operation - Prima facie case))
2014/C 175/62
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Serco Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium); SA Bull NV (Brussels); and Unisys Belgium SA (Brussels) (represented by: V. Ost and M. Vanderstraeten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, L. Cappelletti and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for, first, suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission of 30 October 2013 rejecting the tender submitted by the consortium formed by the applicants in the public tendering procedure DIGIT/R2/PO/2012/026 — ITIC-SM (IT service management for the integrated and consolidated IT desktop environment of the European Commission) (OJ 2012/S 69 — 112095) and awarding the contract to another consortium, secondly, an order that the Commission refrain from concluding the framework contract at issue and from concluding specific contracts under that framework contract and, thirdly, the grant of any other appropriate interim measures.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


Costs are reserved.