do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-157/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 4 April 2014 — Société Neptune Distribution v Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance
Date: 2014-04-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising malpractice, foodstuff, freedom of communication, freedom of expression, labelling, mineral water, salt, sodium








C_2014184EN.01001601.xml










16.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 4 April 2014 — Société Neptune Distribution v Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance
(Case C-157/14)
2014/C 184/20
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Société Neptune Distribution

Defendant: Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance

Questions referred







1.


Is the basis for calculating the ‘equivalent value for salt’ of the quantity of sodium present in a foodstuff, for the purposes of the annex to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, (1) constituted only by the quantity of sodium which, when associated with chloride ions, forms sodium chloride, or table salt, or does it include the total quantity of sodium in all its forms contained in the foodstuff?










2.


In the latter case, do Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/13/EC and Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/54/EC, (2) together with Annex III to the latter directive, read in the light of the equivalence established between sodium and salt in the annex to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, infringe the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of the Treaty on the European Union, read with Article 11(1) (freedom of expression and information) and Article 16 (freedom to conduct a business) of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union, and Article 19 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, by prohibiting a distributor of mineral water from placing on his labels and advertising material any indication as to the low salt content or sodium chloride content, which could be that of his product that is high in sodium bicarbonate, inasmuch as that indication would be likely to mislead the purchaser in regard to the total sodium content of the water?’






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).

(2)  Directive 2009/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (Recast) (OJ 2009 L 164, p. 45).
Case T-568/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2014  — Golam v OHIM — Derby Cycle Werke (FOCUS extreme) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark FOCUS extreme — Earlier national word mark FOCUS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-04-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014159EN.01002301.xml










26.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 159/23





Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2014 — Golam v OHIM — Derby Cycle Werke (FOCUS extreme)
(Case T-568/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark FOCUS extreme - Earlier national word mark FOCUS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2014/C 159/31
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Derby Cycle Werke GmbH (Cloppenburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Gedert, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 October 2012 (Case R 2327/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Derby Cycle Werke GmbH and Sofia Golam.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sofia Golam to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.