do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-242/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mannheim (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2014  — Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v Firma Gerhard und Jürgen Vogel GbR, Jürgen Vogel, Gerhard Vogel
Date: 2014-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: crop production, designation of origin, indemnification








C_2014303EN.01000901.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mannheim (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2014 — Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v Firma Gerhard und Jürgen Vogel GbR, Jürgen Vogel, Gerhard Vogel
(Case C-242/14)
2014/C 303/12
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Mannheim

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

Defendants: Firma Gerhard und Jürgen Vogel GbR, Jürgen Vogel, Gerhard Vogel

Questions referred







—


Is a farmer who has planted propagating material obtained from a protected plant variety without having concluded a contract for so doing with the plant variety right holder required to pay reasonable compensation, as provided for in Article 94(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (1) of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights, and — if he has acted intentionally or negligently — to compensate the holder for any further damage resulting from the infringement of the plant variety right in accordance with Article 94(2) of that regulation, where he has not yet fulfilled his obligation under Article 14(3), fourth indent, of that regulation, in conjunction with Articles 5 and 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 (2) of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, to pay an equitable remuneration (planting fee) at the time when he actually made use of the product of the harvest for propagating purposes in the field?










—


If the first question is to be answered to the effect that the farmer can still fulfil his obligation to pay an equitable planting fee even after he has actually made use of the product of the harvest for propagating purposes in the field, are the aforementioned provisions to be interpreted as fixing a period within which a farmer who has planted propagating material obtained from a protected plant variety must fulfil his obligation to pay an equitable planting fee in order for the planting to be capable of being regarded as ‘authorised’ for the purposes of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 in conjunction with Article 14 of that regulation?






(1)  OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14.
Case T-382/14: Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Rintisch v OHIM — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)
Date: 2014-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dairy industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014282EN.01003901.xml










25.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/39





Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Rintisch v OHIM — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)
(Case T-382/14)
2014/C 282/51
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie laitière européenne SA (Conde Sur Vire, France)

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 14 March 2014 given in Case R 609/2011-4;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PROTICURD’ for goods in Classes 5 and 29 — International Registration No 9 81  041 designating the European Union

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trademarks Nos 3 9 7 02  429, 3 9 5 49  559 and 3 9 6 08  644

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Granted the appeal in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) CTMR.
Case T-345/14: Action brought on 19 May 2014  — Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics v OHIM Locura Digital (WOUXUN)
Date: 2014-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, radio equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014235EN.01003001.xml










21.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/30





Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics v OHIM Locura Digital (WOUXUN)
(Case T-345/14)
2014/C 235/41
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics Co. Ltd (Quanzhou, China) (represented by: A. Sebastião and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Locura Digital, SL (Granollers, Spain)

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 17 February 2014 in Case R 407/2013-4;










—


Order OHIM to refuse to grant registration of the Community trade mark No 1 0 0 72  478‘WOUXUN’ in full










—


Order Locura Digital, SL to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Locura Digital, SL

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark WOUXUN for goods and services in Classes 9, 39 and 42 — Application for Community trade mark No 1 0 0 72  478

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics Co. Ltd

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word marks WOUXUN for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 38

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-338/14: Action brought on 19 May 2014  — UNIC v Commission
Date: 2014-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ethiopia, India, Pakistan, animal skin, generalised preferences, raw material, tariff preference








C_2014212EN.01004101.xml










7.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/41





Action brought on 19 May 2014 — UNIC v Commission
(Case T-338/14)
2014/C 212/53
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Unione Nazionale Industria Conciaria (UNIC) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Fratini, lawyer, and M. Bottino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Uphold the action and, accordingly, annul the contested decision;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against the European Commission’s decision of 19 March 2014 rejecting the request for initiation of a withdrawal procedure in respect of the preferential tariff arrangements granted to India, Pakistan and Ethiopia with regard to the raw hides and semi-manufactured leather goods referred to in Sections S-8a, S-8b and S-12a of [the GSP Sections, as set out in Annex V to] Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 (OJ 2012 L 303, p. 1).
In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.






—


The applicant claims, in this regard, that the contested decision does not comply with the obligation, as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice, to provide a clear, precise and unequivocal statement of reasons.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.






—


The applicant claims, in this regard, that there has been a manifest error of assessment regarding (i) whether the temporary withdrawal of preferential arrangements is a sufficient response to the raw material supply problem and (ii) the existence of preconditions for the temporary withdrawal, pursuant to Article 19(1)(d) of Regulation No 978/2012, of the general preferential arrangements granted to India, Ethiopia and Pakistan.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging failure to respect the right to good administration as described in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.






—


The applicant claims, in this regard, that there has been a failure to verify whether the conditions listed in Article 19(1)(d) of Regulation No 978/2012 for initiating the procedure for withdrawing generalised tariff preferences have been satisfied.
Case T-343/14: Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Cipriani/OHIM — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI)
Date: 2014-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014261EN.01002902.xml










11.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/29





Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Cipriani/OHIM — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI)
(Case T-343/14)
2014/C 261/53
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Arrigo Cipriani (Venice, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, S. Bergia, and G. Sironi, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hotel Cipriani (Venice, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Cancel the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 March 2014 in Case R 224/2012-4 and declare the nullity, pursuant to Article 52(1)(b) and Article 53(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in connection with Article 8.3 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property, of the trademark ‘Cipriani’ No 115824 held by Hotel Cipriani for all goods and services for which the trademark is registered or;










—


Subordinately, for all goods or services other than ‘hotels and hotel reservation’ services or;










—


Subordinately in relation to services of ‘restaurants, cafeterias, public eating places, bars, catering, delivery of drinks and beverages for immediate consumption’ or;










—


Remit the proceedings to the OHIM so that it may issue that declaration of nullity;










—


Order that Mr Arrigo Cipriani’s costs for these proceedings be entirely reimbursed.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘CIPRIANI’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 35 and 42 — Community trade mark No 115 824

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Hotel Cipriani

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The trade mark had been registered in bad faith and infringed the right to a renowned personal name ‘CIPRIANI’

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law:







—


Violation of Article 53(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to article 8.3 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property;










—


Violation of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-45/14: Action brought on 19 May 2014  — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2014-05-19
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, regulations for civil servants, transfer of pension rights








C_2014212EN.01004602.xml










7.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/46





Action brought on 19 May 2014 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-45/14)
2014/C 212/60
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas, M. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme applying the new GIP on Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 25 September 2013 calculating the bonus to his pension rights acquired before his entry into service in the Commission;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-342/14 P: Appeal brought on 19 May 2014 by CR against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 March 2014 in Case F-128/12, CR v Parliament
Date: 2014-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, administrative procedure, family benefit, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, proof, redemption, remuneration of work








C_2014212EN.01004201.xml










7.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/42





Appeal brought on 19 May 2014 by CR against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 March 2014 in Case F-128/12, CR v Parliament
(Case T-342/14 P)
2014/C 212/54
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: CR (Malling, France) (represented by A. Salerno, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 March 2014;










—


itself settle the dispute between the appellant and the European Parliament, by annulling the decision which the appellant challenged before the Civil Service Tribunal, in so far as that decision requires him to reimburse all the sums which he unlawfully received in respect of family allowances; or










—


in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;










—


order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of both sets of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant contests the rejection of the objection of illegality brought against the last sentence of the second paragraph of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials. In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a failure to respond to the appellant’s arguments as regards the disproportionate nature of the absence of any limitation period should the appointing authority be able to establish that the person concerned deliberately misled the administration with a view to obtaining payment of the sum in question.
Case T-354/14: Action brought on 19 May 2014  — Comercializadora Eloro v OHIM — Zumex Group (zumex)
Date: 2014-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, export, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014253EN.01004101.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/41





Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Comercializadora Eloro v OHIM — Zumex Group (zumex)
(Case T-354/14)
2014/C 253/55
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Comercializadora Eloro, SA (Ecatepec, Mexico) (represented by: J. L de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zumex Group, SA (Moncada, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


hold, on the basis of the documents filed in the administrative procedure and those submitted together with the present application, that the applicant has provided sufficient proof of use of its earlier mark ‘JUMEX’ for fruit juices in Class 32;










—


refuse the registration of the mark applied for ‘ZUMEX’ for all goods in Class 32 on account of the opposing party, who is the applicant in the present proceedings, having proved use of the mark with priority, because of the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers arising from the coexistence in the market of both marks, given the similarity of the words and their identity in application.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Zumex Group, SA

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with word element ‘zumex’ for goods in Class 32 — Community trade mark application No 6 8 45  598

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘JUMEX’ for goods in Class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and opposition rejected

Pleas in law:







—


Proof of use of the earlier mark;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union OJ C 142, 12.5.2014
Date: 2014-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2014151EN.01000101.xml










19.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/1





2014/C 151/01
Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union



OJ C 142, 12.5.2014



Past publications


OJ C 135, 5.5.2014


OJ C 129, 28.4.2014


OJ C 112, 14.4.2014


OJ C 102, 7.4.2014


OJ C 93, 29.3.2014


OJ C 85, 22.3.2014

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu