do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-599/11: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014  — Eni v OHIM — Emi (IP) (ENI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ENI — Earlier Community figurative mark EMI — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Partial refusal of registration)
Date: 2014-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, energy industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014212EN.01002501.xml










7.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/25





Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014 — Eni v OHIM — Emi (IP) (ENI)
(Case T-599/11) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ENI - Earlier Community figurative mark EMI - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Partial refusal of registration))
2014/C 212/29
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Eni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: D. De Simone and G. Orsoni, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: C. Negro and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Emi (IP) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2011 (Case R 2439/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Emi (IP) Ltd and Eni SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Eni SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.
Case T-344/14: Action brought on 21 May 2014  — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM (Deluxe)
Date: 2014-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, supermarket, trade-mark law








C_2014235EN.01002902.xml










21.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/29





Action brought on 21 May 2014 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM (Deluxe)
(Case T-344/14)
2014/C 235/40
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by M. Kefferpütz and A. Wrage, 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 First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 in Case R 1223/2013-1;










—


Declare that the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 do not preclude the publication of the mark applied for;










—


Refer application No 01 1 4 27  507 back to the defendant so that the registration procedure may be resumed;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘Deluxe’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 4 27  507

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-447/11: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014  — Catinis v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to an OLAF investigation concerning the implementation of a project for the modernisation of infrastructure in Syria — Access refused — Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits)
Date: 2014-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, Syria, access to EU information, audit, modernisation aid, provision of documents, research








C_2014212EN.01002302.xml










7.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/23





Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014 — Catinis v Commission
(Case T-447/11) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to an OLAF investigation concerning the implementation of a project for the modernisation of infrastructure in Syria - Access refused - Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits))
2014/C 212/27
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lian Catinis (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and F. Clotuche Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 10 June 2011 refusing, first, to grant the purported request to close OLAF’s investigation concerning a project for the modernisation of infrastructure in Syria and, second, to grant access to certain documents in the file relating to that investigation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action.










2)


Orders Mr Lian Catinis to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10. 011.
Case C-245/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 21 May 2014  — Thomas Cook Belgium NV v Thurner Hotel GmbH
Date: 2014-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, civil procedure, claim, judicial review, jurisdiction








C_2014303EN.01001001.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 21 May 2014 — Thomas Cook Belgium NV v Thurner Hotel GmbH
(Case C-245/14)
2014/C 303/13
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Thomas Cook Belgium NV

Respondent: Thurner Hotel GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European order for payment procedure (‘Regulation No 1896/2006’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment in accordance with Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006 also where the order for payment was effectively served on him but was issued by a court which lacks jurisdiction on the basis of the information relating to jurisdiction provided in the application form?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Do exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006 already exist in accordance with paragraph 25 of European Commission Notice 2004/0055 of 7 February 2006 where the European order for payment was issued on the basis of information provided in the application form which may subsequently prove to be inaccurate, particularly where the jurisdiction of the court depends on that information?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.
Case C-246/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia (Italy) of 21 May 2014 — Vittoria De Bellis and Others v Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza dei Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (INPDAP)
Date: 2014-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, administrative transparency, pension scheme, provision of documents








C_2014421EN.01001801.xml










24.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 421/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia (Italy) of 21 May 2014 — Vittoria De Bellis and Others v Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza dei Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (INPDAP)
(Case C-246/14)
2014/C 421/25
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale Per la Regione Puglia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Vittoria De Bellis, Diana Perrone, Cesaria Antonia Villani

Defendant: Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza dei Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (INPDAP)
By order of 15 October 2014, the Court (Fifth Chamber) declared that it clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred.
Case T-352/14: Action brought on 21 May 2014 — The Smiley Company v OHIM — The Swatch Group Management Services (HAPPY TIME)
Date: 2014-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic commerce, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014245EN.01002501.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/25





Action brought on 21 May 2014 — The Smiley Company v OHIM — The Swatch Group Management Services (HAPPY TIME)
(Case T-352/14)
2014/C 245/33
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant): The Smiley Company SPRL (Bruxelles, Belgium) (represented by: I. Helbig, P. Hansmersmann and S. Rengshausen, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Swatch Group Management Services AG (Biel, Switzerland)

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 6 February 2014 in Case R 1497/2013-1;










—


Dismiss the opposition by amendment of the contested decision;










—


Order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs before the General Court and order the intervener to pay the applicant’s costs before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HAPPY TIME’ for goods and services in Classes 14 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 06  813

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The Swatch Group Management Services AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration protected with effect in the European Union of the word mark ‘HAPPY HOURS’ for services in Classes 35 and 37

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was partially upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-360/14: Action brought on 21 May 2014 — Švyturys-Utenos Alus v OHIM — Nordbrand Nordhausen (KISS)
Date: 2014-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014253EN.01004501.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/45





Action brought on 21 May 2014 — Švyturys-Utenos Alus v OHIM — Nordbrand Nordhausen (KISS)
(Case T-360/14)
2014/C 253/60
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Švyturys-Utenos Alus UAB (Utena, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Žabolienė and I. Lukauskienė, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH (Nordhausen, 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 17 March 2014 in Case R 1302/2013-4; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark KISS for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 20  565

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark CRISS for goods in Class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected

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

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Rule 20(7)(c) in conjunction with Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 in conjunction with Article 55(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-553/12: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014  — Bateaux mouches v OHIM (Community trade mark — Application for figurative Community trade mark BATEUAX-MOUCHES — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pleasure craft, registered trade mark, river tourism, trade-mark law








C_2014212EN.01002801.xml










7.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/28





Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014 — Bateaux mouches v OHIM
(Case T-553/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for figurative Community trade mark BATEUAX-MOUCHES - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
2014/C 212/34
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA (Paris, France) (represented by: G. Barbaut, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 October 2012 (Case R 1709/2011-2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BATEAUX-MOUCHES as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.
Case T-519/09: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014  — Toshiba v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Power transformers market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Market-sharing agreement — Proof of distancing from the cartel — Restriction of competition — Effect on trade — Barriers to entry — Fines — Basic amount — Reference year — Section 18 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Use of a notional market share in the EEA market)
Date: 2014-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, electric machinery, fine, infringement of EU law, market-sharing agreement, restriction on competition








C_2014212EN.01002301.xml










7.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/23





Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014 — Toshiba v Commission
(Case T-519/09) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Power transformers market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market-sharing agreement - Proof of distancing from the cartel - Restriction of competition - Effect on trade - Barriers to entry - Fines - Basic amount - Reference year - Section 18 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Use of a notional market share in the EEA market))
2014/C 212/26
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Toshiba Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz, J. Jourdan and P. Berghe, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Bourke and K. Mojzesowicz, and subsequently by K. Mojzesowicz and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision of 7 October 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.129 — Power Transformers), and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Toshiba Corp. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.
Corrigendum to Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (recast) ( OJ C 110, 11.4.2014 )
Date: 2014-05-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Cenelec, European Committee for Standardisation, European standard, harmonisation of standards, machinery, product safety, safety standard, technical standard








C_2014153EN.01002101.xml










21.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 153/21





Corrigendum to Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (recast)
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 110 of 11 April 2014
)
(2014/C 153/08)
On page 63:

for:











‘CEN


EN 16252:2012
Machines for compacting waste materials or recyclable fractions — Horizontal baling presses — Safety requirements


5.4.2013’


 


 




 






read:











‘CEN


EN 16252:2012
Machines for compacting waste materials or recyclable fractions — Horizontal baling presses — Safety requirements


5.4.2013


 


 




CEN


EN 16307-1:2013
Industrial trucks — Safety requirements and verification — Part 1: Supplementary requirements for self-propelled industrial trucks, other than driverless trucks, variable-reach trucks and burden-carrier trucks


5.4.2013’
Case C-292/13 P: Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 21 May 2014  — Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Impexmetal S.A.
Date: 2014-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, infringement of EU law, jurisdiction, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014261EN.01001804.xml










11.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/18





Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 21 May 2014 — Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Impexmetal S.A.
(Case C-292/13 P) (1)

2014/C 261/31
Language of the case: Polish
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.
Prior notification of a concentration (M.6968 — Lufthansa/CAE/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-05-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, crew, merger control, simulation, transport company, vocational training








C_2014153EN.01000801.xml










21.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 153/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.6968 — Lufthansa/CAE/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2014/C 153/04)






1.


On 13 May 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 Deutsche Lufthansa AG (‘Lufthansa’, Germany) and CAE Inc. (‘CAE’, Canada) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created company constituting a joint venture (the ‘JV’) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Lufthansa is a global aviation group active in the passenger airline business, logistics, maintenance repair overhaul, catering, IT services and cockpit and cabin crew training services,










—


CAE is active in modeling, simulation, and training for civil aviation and defence. Its business is diversified, ranging from the sale of flight simulation products to providing comprehensive services such as training and aviation services, professional services, in-services support and crew sourcing,










—


The JV will be active in the development and delivery of pilot and cabin crew entitlement and other training service solutions for the Bombardier C-Series aircraft program.














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. 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 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 M.6968 — Lufthansa/CAE/JV, 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.
2014/352/EU: Council Decision of 21 May 2014 designating the European Capital of Culture for the year 2018 in the Netherlands
Date: 2014-05-21
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European cultural event, European symbol, Netherlands, capital city








L_2014175EN.01002601.xml










14.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 175/26








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 21 May 2014
         
designating the European Capital of Culture for the year 2018 in the Netherlands

(2014/352/EU)



THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Decision No 1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2007 to 2019 (1), and in particular to Article 9(3) thereof,


Having regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,


Having regard to the selection panel's report of September 2013 regarding the selection process of the European Capital of Culture in the Netherlands,

Whereas:

Considering that the criteria referred to in Article 4 of Decision No 1622/2006/EC are entirely fulfilled,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Leeuwarden is designated as ‘European Capital of Culture 2018’ in the Netherlands.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 21 May 2014.


For the Council


The President

A. KYRIAZIS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 304, 3.11.2006, p. 1.