do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-651/13: Order of the General Court of 2 June 2014  — Time v OHIM (InStyle)
Date: 2014-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, communications industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014315EN.01007205.xml










15.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/72





Order of the General Court of 2 June 2014 — Time v OHIM (InStyle)
(Case T-651/13) (1)

2014/C 315/121
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.
Case T-388/14: Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)
Date: 2014-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2014329EN.01001702.xml










22.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/17





Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)
(Case T-388/14)
2014/C 329/24
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: salesforce.com, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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 given in Case R 1853/2013-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MARKETINGCLOUD’ for services in Classes 35 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 9 79  417

Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark not eligible for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR.
Case T-387/14: Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)
Date: 2014-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014261EN.01003901.xml










11.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/39





Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)
(Case T-387/14)
2014/C 261/64
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: salesforce.com, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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 given in Case R 1852/2013-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MARKETINGCLOUD’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 10 979 359

Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark not eligible for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR.
Case T-389/14: Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)
Date: 2014-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2014329EN.01001801.xml










22.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/18





Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)
(Case T-389/14)
2014/C 329/25
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: salesforce.com, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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 given in Case R 1854/2013-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MARKETINGCLOUD’ for services in Class 42 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 9 79  441

Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark not eligible for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR.
Case C-264/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 2 June 2014  — Skatteverket v David Hedqvist
Date: 2014-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, exchange rate, exchange transaction, provision of services, tax exemption








C_2014245EN.01000701.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 2 June 2014 — Skatteverket v David Hedqvist
(Case C-264/14)
2014/C 245/09
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: David Hedqvist

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 2(1) of the VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that transactions in the form of what has been designated as the exchange of virtual currency for traditional currency and vice versa, which is effected for consideration added by the supplier when the exchange rates are determined, constitute the supply of a service effected for consideration?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is Article 135(1) to be interpreted as meaning that the abovementioned exchange transactions are tax exempt?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax. (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case T-409/14: Action brought on 2 June 2014  — Marcuccio v Court of Justice
Date: 2014-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, indemnification, rights of the defence








C_2014245EN.01003002.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/30





Action brought on 2 June 2014 — Marcuccio v Court of Justice
(Case T-409/14)
2014/C 245/42
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, by which the defendant rejected the request of 22 January 2014 submitted by the applicant to Court of Justice.










—


Order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 25  000, or such other greater or lesser sum as the General Court may deem to be fair and equitable, by way of compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the unreasonable duration of the legal proceedings brought by the applicant, or by way of an indemnity on account of the unreasonable duration of the proceedings in question.










—


Order the defendant to pay all the costs, fees and other expenses incurred in these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject-matter of the present action is the harm which the applicant claims that he suffered as a result of what he claims to be the excessive duration of the proceedings in Case T-236/02 Marcuccio v Commission.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on 2 pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging absolute failure to state reasons, including on the ground of absolute failure to carry out a preliminary investigation and breach of the duty of sound administration.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of law and manifest error of assessment.
Case C-262/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Neamț (Romania) lodged on 2 June 2014  — Sindicatul cadrelor militare disponibilizate, în rezervă și în retragere (SCMD), Constantin Budiș, Vasile Murariu, Vasile Ursache, Ioan Zăpor and Petrea Simionel v Ministerul Finanțelor Publice — Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Neamț
Date: 2014-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dismissal, equal treatment, job access, national implementing measure, recruitment, retired person








C_2014315EN.01003402.xml










15.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/34





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Neamț (Romania) lodged on 2 June 2014 — Sindicatul cadrelor militare disponibilizate, în rezervă și în retragere (SCMD), Constantin Budiș, Vasile Murariu, Vasile Ursache, Ioan Zăpor and Petrea Simionel v Ministerul Finanțelor Publice — Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Neamț
(Case C-262/14)
2014/C 315/56
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Neamț

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Sindicatul Cadrelor Militare Disponibilizate în rezervă și în retragere (SCMD), Constantin Budiș, Vasile Murariu, Vasile Ursache, Ioan Zăpor and Petrea Simionel

Defendant: Ministerul Finanțelor Publice — Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Neamț

Questions referred







1.


May Article 2(2) of Directive 2000/78 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the concept of discrimination to which that provision refers also covers the creation of a situation in which there is a difference in treatment depending on whether a person who is, or wishes to be, employed is in receipt of a pension?










2.


May Article 3(1) of Directive 2000/78 be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘person in receipt of a pension’ is among the criteria and conditions relating to the concepts of conditions for access to employment, selection criteria and conditions for dismissal?










3.


May Article 6 of Directive 2000/78 be interpreted as permitting a Member State which has transposed that provision into national law to determine, in the context of judicial proceedings, whether European directives have been inadequately or incorrectly transposed into national law as regards the assessment of the ‘[objective and reasonable justification]’ for the application of a difference in treatment, and also the ‘legitimate aim’ considered by the legislature when adopting the legislation under which provision is made for a difference in treatment?






(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
Case C-266/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 2 June 2014  — Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.) v Tyco Integrated Security, S.L. and Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios, S.A.
Date: 2014-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, working time








C_2014282EN.01001901.xml










25.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 2 June 2014 — Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.) v Tyco Integrated Security, S.L. and Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios, S.A.
(Case C-266/14)
2014/C 282/25
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional — Sala de lo Social

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.)

Defendant: Tyco Integrated Security, S.L. and Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios, S.A.

Question referred

Must Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the time spent travelling at the beginning and end of the day by a worker who is not assigned to a fixed place of work but is required to travel every day from home to the premises of a different customer of the employer and to return home from the premises of another, different, customer (following a route or list that is determined for the worker by the employer the previous day), at all times within a geographical area that is more or less extensive, in the conditions of the main proceedings as described in the background to this question, constitutes ‘working time’ as that concept is defined in Article 2 of the directive or, conversely, must it be regarded as a ‘rest period’?


(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time
(OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 618/2014 of 2 June 2014 approving a non-minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Bleu de Gex Haut-Jura/Bleu de Septmoncel (PDO))
Date: 2014-06-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, cheese, consumer information, designation of origin, product designation








L_2014170EN.01005801.xml










11.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 170/58








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 618/2014
of 2 June 2014
         
approving a non-minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Bleu de Gex Haut-Jura/Bleu de Septmoncel (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined France's application for the approval of an amendment to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Bleu de Gex Haut-Jura’/‘Bleu de Septmoncel’ registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 937/2008 (3).












(2)


Since the amendment in question is not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union  (4) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.












(3)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendment to the specification should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendment to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby approved.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 2 June 2014.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1.

(3)  
            OJ L 257, 25.9.2008, p. 8.

(4)  
            OJ C 5, 9.1.2014, p. 6.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:
Class 1.3. Cheeses
FRANCE
Bleu de Gex Haut-Jura/Bleu de Septmoncel (PDO)