do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-293/14: Action brought on 28 April 2014 — Cyprus v OHIM (HALLOUMI)
Date: 2014-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cheese, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014245EN.01002102.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/21





Action brought on 28 April 2014 — Cyprus v OHIM (HALLOUMI)
(Case T-293/14)
2014/C 245/29
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 February 2014 given in Case R 1503/2013-4;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HALLOUMI’ for goods in Class 29 — Community trade mark application No 11 570 124

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (b) CTMR.
Case T-292/14: Action brought on 28 April 2014 — Cyprus v OHIM (XAΛΛOYMI)
Date: 2014-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, supermarket, trade-mark law








C_2014245EN.01002101.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/21





Action brought on 28 April 2014 — Cyprus v OHIM (XAΛΛOYMI)
(Case T-292/14)
2014/C 245/28
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 February 2014 given in Case R 1849/2013-4;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘XAΛΛOYMI’ for goods in Class 29 — Community trade mark application No 11 578 473

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (b) CTMR.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and dominant position given at its meeting of 28 April 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/AT.39939 — Samsung — Enforcement of UMTS standard essential patents — Rapporteur: Bulgaria
Date: 2014-04-28
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: marketing, patents licence, restriction on competition, technology, transmission network








C_2014350EN.01000501.xml










4.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/5





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and dominant position given at its meeting of 28 April 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/AT.39939 — Samsung — Enforcement of UMTS standard essential patents
Rapporteur: Bulgaria
(2014/C 350/06)






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment in its draft decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 11 April 2014 under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Samsung are suitable, necessary and proportionate in order to address the concerns expressed by the Commission in its Statement of Objections.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by Samsung, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.










5.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case T-175/13: Order of the General Court of 28 April 2014  — Omega v OHIM — Omega Engineering (Ω OMEGA)
Date: 2014-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, technology, trade-mark law








C_2014194EN.01003803.xml










24.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/38





Order of the General Court of 28 April 2014 — Omega v OHIM — Omega Engineering (Ω OMEGA)
(Case T-175/13) (1)

2014/C 194/53
Language of the case: French
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
Case C-215/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (United Kingdom) made on 28 April 2014 — Société de Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd
Date: 2014-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, industrial manufacturing, marketing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014235EN.01000601.xml










21.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/6





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (United Kingdom) made on 28 April 2014 — Société de Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd
(Case C-215/14)
2014/C 235/08
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (England and Wales)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Société de Produits Nestlé SA

Defendant: Cadbury UK Ltd

Questions referred







1.


In order to establish that a trade mark has acquired distinctive character following the use that had been made of it within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1), is it sufficient for the applicant for registration to prove that at the relevant date a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons recognise the mark and associate it with the applicant’s goods in the sense that, if they were to consider who marketed goods bearing that mark, they would identify the applicant; or must the applicant prove that a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons rely upon the mark (as opposed to any other trade marks which may also be present) as indicating the origin of the goods?










2.


Where a shape consists of three essential features, one of which results from the nature of the goods themselves and two of which are necessary to obtain a technical result, is registration of that shape as a trade mark precluded by Article 3(l)(e)(i) and/or (ii) of Directive 2008/95/EC?










3.


Should Article 3(l)(e)(ii) of Directive 2008/95/EC be interpreted as precluding registration of shapes which are necessary to obtain a technical result with regard to the manner in which the goods are manufactured as opposed to the manner in which the goods function?






(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks

OJ L 299, p. 25
Case T-473/11: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2014 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Weleda Trademark (MENOCHRON) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark MENOCHRON — Earlier Community word mark MENODORON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, health care, medical plant, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014184EN.01002601.xml










16.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/26





Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2014 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Weleda Trademark (MENOCHRON)
(Case T-473/11) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark MENOCHRON - Earlier Community word mark MENODORON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2014/C 184/44
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Longevity Health Products (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Weleda Trademark AG (Arlesheim, Switzerland) (represented by: W. Haring, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 July 2010 (Case R 2345/2010-4), relating to an opposition procedure between Weleda Trademark AG and Longevity Health Products, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders Longevity Health Products, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.
Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union OJ C 112, 14.4.2014
Date: 2014-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2014129EN.01000101.xml










28.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/1







(2014/C 129/01)
Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union



OJ C 112, 14.4.2014




Past publications


OJ C 102, 7.4.2014


OJ C 93, 29.3.2014


OJ C 85, 22.3.2014


OJ C 78, 15.3.2014


OJ C 71, 8.3.2014


OJ C 61, 1.3.2014

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant position given at its meeting of 28 April 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39985 — Motorola — Enforcement of GPRS standard-essential patents — Rapporteur: Bulgaria
Date: 2014-04-28
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: Germany, infringement of EU law, inter-company agreement, patents licence, restriction on competition, technical standard, telecommunications








C_2014344EN.01000301.xml










2.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/3





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant position given at its meeting of 28 April 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39985 — Motorola — Enforcement of GPRS standard-essential patents
Rapporteur: Bulgaria
2014/C 344/04






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees with Commission’s assessment in the draft decision that in the exceptional circumstances of the case and in the absence of any objective justification, Motorola has infringed Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement by seeking and enforcing an injunction against Apple before the courts of the Federal Republic of Germany.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission not to impose a fine on Motorola.










3.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case T-132/13: Order of the General Court of 28 April 2014  — Deweerdt and Others v Court of Auditors
Date: 2014-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: impunity, member of the Court of Auditors (EU), misuse of a right, psychological harassment








C_2014194EN.01003802.xml










24.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/38





Order of the General Court of 28 April 2014 — Deweerdt and Others v Court of Auditors
(Case T-132/13) (1)

2014/C 194/52
Language of the case: French
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.
Case T-269/14: Action brought on 28 April 2014 — City Index/OHIM — Citigroup and Citibank (CITY INDEX)
Date: 2014-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, financial institution, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014253EN.01003202.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/32





Action brought on 28 April 2014 — City Index/OHIM — Citigroup and Citibank (CITY INDEX)
(Case T-269/14)
2014/C 253/47
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: City Index Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citigroup, Inc. and Citibank, NA (New York, USA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Partially annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 February 2014 in case R 172/2013-2 that upheld the opposition in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 36;










—


Order the defendant to pay the applicant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CITY INDEX’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 36 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 7 4 58  094

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Citigroup, Inc. and Citibank, NA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘citi’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 36 and 42, the community and national figurative marks containing the word elements ‘citifinancial’ and ‘citibank’, as well as the community and national word marks ‘CITICAPITAL’, ‘CITIMONEY’, ‘CITIFINANCIAL’, ‘CITI’, ‘CITIBOND’, ‘CITICONNECT’, ‘CITIBANK’ and ‘CITICARD’

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was partially annulled and the Community trade mark application partially rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009