do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Extension of the period of validity of the lists of suitable candidates
Date: 2014-04-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European security, administrator, common security and defence policy, competition (EU), information technology, public contract, translation








CA2014109EN.01000101.xml










11.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 109/1





Extension of the period of validity of the lists of suitable candidates
2014/C 109 A/01
 
By decision of the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union, the validity of the shortlists of suitable candidates, drawn up following the open competitions listed below, is extended until 31 December 2014:







Council/420/AD5



to establish a reserve recruitment list of junior administrators in the field of security (Private Office/Security: external security/mission protection), the notice of which was published in Official Journal of the European Union
C 316 A of 13 December 2005.





Council/421/AD5



to establish a reserve recruitment list of junior administrators in the field of security (Private Office/Security: Internal Protection Service), the notice of which was published in Official Journal of the European Union
C 316 A of 13 December 2005.





CONS/AD/430


(two profiles)



to establish a reserve recruitment list of senior administrators in the field of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). The competition concerns two AD 9 profiles (Profile 1: senior strategic planners for crisis management operations and missions; Profile 2: senior capability development planners: military/civilian/space), the notice of which was published in Official Journal of the European Union
C 178 A of 15 July 2008.





CONS/AD/431



to establish a reserve recruitment list of senior administrators (AD 9) in the field of information systems security, the notice of which was published in Official Journal of the European Union
C 178 A of 15 July 2008.





CONS/AD/432



to establish a reserve recruitment list of administrators (AD 7) in the field of information systems security, the notice of which was published in Official Journal of the European Union
C 178 A of 15 July 2008.





CONS-COMM/AD/433



to establish a reserve recruitment list of heads of unit (AD 12) in the field of translation having Irish as their main language, the notice of which was published in Official Journal of the European Union
C 99 A of 30 April 2009.
Case T-229/14: Action brought on 11 April 2014  — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb v OHIM — Yorma’s (Yorma Eberl)
Date: 2014-04-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, supermarket, trade-mark law








C_2014194EN.01003001.xml










24.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/30





Action brought on 11 April 2014 — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb v OHIM — Yorma’s (Yorma Eberl)
(Case T-229/14)
2014/C 194/38
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Parr, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yorma’s AG (Deggendorf, 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 11 February 2014 in Case R 532/2013-4;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Yorma’s AG

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Yorma Eberl’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 9 40  289

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The trade and firm name in commercial use and national and Community word marks NORMA for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7185 — Agroenergi/Neova Pellets)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-04-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Latvia, Sweden, biofuel, economic concentration, merger control








C_2014109EN.01003301.xml










11.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/33





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7185 — Agroenergi/Neova Pellets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 109/06






1.


On 3 April 2014, the European Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Agroenergi AB (‘Agroenergi’ of Sweden), owned by Lantmännen ek för (‘Lantmännen’of Sweden), and Neova Pellets (‘Neova’ of Sweden), owned by Vapo Oy (‘Vapo’ of Finland) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture (‘JV’).










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Agroenergi: active in the wood pellets business in Sweden and Latvia,
—   for Neova Pellets: active in the wood pellets business in Sweden,
—   for JV: it will be active in the production and sale of wood pellets in Sweden.










3.


On preliminary examination, the European Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The European Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the European Commission.
Observations must reach the European Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the European Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.7185 — Agroenergi/Neova Pellets, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Case C-182/14 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2014 by Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2014 in Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2014-04-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2014223EN.01000301.xml










14.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/3





Appeal brought on 11 April 2014 by Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2014 in Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-182/14 P)
2014/C 223/03
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (represented by: A. Nordemann, M.C. Maier, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 as far as it concerns Case T-292/12,










—


if necessary, remit the case back to the General Court,










—


order the Defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant bases its appeal on a single plea, alleging infringement of article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), of 26 February 2009, on the Community trade mark.
Specifically the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law:






1)


in not taking into consideration, or even mentioning, in the framework of a global assessment, that the earlier trade mark, MAGNET 4, consists of the number ‘4’;










2)


in considering, at paragraphs 22 and 25 of its judgment, the element MAGNET as the dominant element of the earlier trademark, MAGNET 4;










3)


in applying, at paragraph 25, different standards to the assessment of the phonetic and visual similarities of the signs MAGNET 4 and MAGNEXT;










4)


by not taking into account, at paragraph 35, in the framework of a global appreciation of the likelihood of confusion, the interdependence of the relevant factors, in particular the low level of distinctiveness of the earlier mark, MAGNET 4, the lack of conceptual similarity of the signs MAGNET 4 and MAGNEXT, and the weak degree of phonetic and visual similarities of the signs;










5)


in not providing substantive grounds, in paragraph 35, with regard to the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the signs MAGNET 4 and MAGNEXT






(1)  OJ L 78, p. 1
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7211 — AXA/PSPIB/Real Estate Portfolio in Milan) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-04-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Canada, Italy, building, economic concentration, insurance company, investment company, merger control, supplementary pension








C_2014109EN.01003401.xml










11.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/34





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7211 — AXA/PSPIB/Real Estate Portfolio in Milan)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 109/07






1.


On 4 April 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings SCI Vendome Bureaux, ultimately controlled by AXA S.A. (‘AXA’, France), and PSPLUX S.à r.l., a fully owned subsidiary of Public Sector Pension Investment Board (‘PSPIB’, Canada) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a portfolio of real estate assets in Milan (the ‘Real Estate Portfolio in Milan’, Italy) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


AXA is a global insurance group active in life, health and other forms of insurance, as well as in investment management,










—


PSPIB is a pension investment manager that invests funds for the pension plans of the Public Service, the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Reserve Force,










—


The Real Estate Portfolio in Milan comprises four buildings: Bodio 4, Bodio 5, La Vela and La Stilo, designated to office and retail uses.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+ 32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.7211 — AXA/PSPIB/Real Estate Portfolio in Milan, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-225/14: Action brought on 11 April 2014 — iNET24 Holding v OHIM (IDIRECT24)
Date: 2014-04-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, holding company, investment company, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014184EN.01003601.xml










16.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/36





Action brought on 11 April 2014 — iNET24 Holding v OHIM (IDIRECT24)
(Case T-225/14)
2014/C 184/58
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: iNET24 Holding AG (Feusisberg, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Kirschstein-Freund, B. Breitinger and V. Dalichau, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 February 2014 in Case R 1867/2013-5;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Designation of the European Union for the international registration of the word mark ‘IDIRECT24’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 38 and 42 — International registration No 1 145 181

Decision of the Examiner: Application refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-227/14: Action brought on 11 April 2014 — CBM Creative Brands Marken v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (Trecolore)
Date: 2014-04-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, intellectual property, investment company, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014245EN.01001702.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/17





Action brought on 11 April 2014 — CBM Creative Brands Marken v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (Trecolore)
(Case T-227/14)
2014/C 245/24
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, M. Grundmann and N. Kerger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (Rome, 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 29 January 2014 in Case R 253/2013-1 in so far as the First Board of Appeal annuls the decision of the Opposition Division and upholds the opposition against the application mark rejecting the application No 009 877 325 in regard of the goods in classes 18 and 25;










—


Dismiss the opposition against Application No 009 877 325 in its entirety;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Trecolore’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 877 325

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The community and national word and figurative mark ‘FRECCE TRICOLORI’, for goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 28 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6541 — Glencore/Xstrata)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-04-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, primary product, raw material








C_2014109EN.01000101.xml










11.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6541 — Glencore/Xstrata)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 109/01
On 22 November 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language 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 32012M6541. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 394/2014 of 11 April 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for skates and rays in Union waters of VIId by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands
Date: 2014-04-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU waters, English Channel, Netherlands, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2014115EN.01002001.xml










17.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 115/20








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 394/2014
of 11 April 2014
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for skates and rays in Union waters of VIId by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands


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 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters (2), lays down quotas for 2014.












(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 2014.












(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 2014 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, 11 April 2014.


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 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1.




ANNEX






No


05/TQ43




Member State


The Netherlands




Stock


SRX/07D.




Species


Skates and rays (Rajiformes)




Zone


Union waters of VIId




Closing date


27.3.2014
Case T-209/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2014 — Olive Line International v OHIM (OLIVE LINE) (Community trade mark — Application for registration of the Community figurative mark OLIVE LINE — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-04-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, olive oil, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014175EN.01004002.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/40





Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2014 — Olive Line International v OHIM (OLIVE LINE)
(Case T-209/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for registration of the Community figurative mark OLIVE LINE - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2014/C 175/54
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Olive Line International, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2013 (Case R 1447/2012-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign OLIVE LINE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Olive Line International, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013