do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-625/14: Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Device of a sphere)
Date: 2014-08-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014351EN.01002802.xml










6.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/28





Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Device of a sphere)
(Case T-625/14)
2014/C 351/37
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, 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 17 June 2014 given in Case R 168/2014-5.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark representing a device of a sphere for goods in classes 3, 21 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 37  541

Decision of the Examiner: Partially rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.
Case T-626/14: Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Device of a blue sphere)
Date: 2014-08-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014351EN.01002901.xml










6.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/29





Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Device of a blue sphere)
(Case T-626/14)
2014/C 351/38
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, 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 17 June 2014 given in Case R 169/2014-5.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark representing a device of a blue sphere for goods in classes 3, 21 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 37  483

Decision of the Examiner: Partially rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.
Case T-618/14: Action brought on 18 August 2014  — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Shape of a Mexican taco)
Date: 2014-08-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014351EN.01002501.xml










6.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/25





Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Shape of a Mexican taco)
(Case T-618/14)
2014/C 351/32
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, 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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 June 2010 in Case R 2449/2013-2 on the grounds of illegality and failure to observe the applicable legislative provisions relating to the Community trade mark, give judgment in accordance with the form of order sought set out in this application to the effect that the three-dimensional mark applied for is sufficiently inherently distinctive, grant this application and order that the three-dimensional Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 48  051 be entered into the register of trade marks in Class 30 of the International Classification as it is consistent with the requirements of Community trade mark law;










—


once this action has been allowed and the aforementioned mark entered into the register, order the person opposing the claim to pay the costs of these proceedings and to order OHIM to repay the appeal fee.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a Mexican taco for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark application No 11 748 051

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-394/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2014  — Sandy Siewert and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
Date: 2014-08-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, consumer protection, transport regulations








C_2014372EN.01001101.xml










20.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Sandy Siewert and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
(Case C-394/14)
2014/C 372/14
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Sandy Siewert, Emma Siewert, Nele Siewert

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight?










2.


If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay?










3.


Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004?










4.


If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party?






(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-240/13: Order of the President of the Court of 18 August 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Estonia supported by: Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Belgium, Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Poland, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden
Date: 2014-08-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electricity supply, exchange of information, single market








C_2014409EN.01003101.xml










17.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 409/31





Order of the President of the Court of 18 August 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia supported by: Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Belgium, Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Poland, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden
(Case C-240/13) (1)

2014/C 409/43
Language of the case: Estonian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
Case C-241/13: Order of the President of the Court of 18 August 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Estonia supported by: Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Belgium, Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Poland, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden
Date: 2014-08-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: gas supply, natural gas, single market








C_2014409EN.01003102.xml










17.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 409/31





Order of the President of the Court of 18 August 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia supported by: Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Belgium, Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Poland, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden
(Case C-241/13) (1)

2014/C 409/44
Language of the case: Estonian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
Case T-633/14: Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Monster Energy v OHIM (Representation of a peace symbol)
Date: 2014-08-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015127EN.01002802.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/28





Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Monster Energy v OHIM (Representation of a peace symbol)
(Case T-633/14)
(2015/C 127/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States of America) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a peace symbol) — Application for registration No 11 363 611

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2013 in Case R 1285/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea(s) in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-399/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2014  — Grüne Liga Sachsen e. V. and Others v Freistaat Sachsen
Date: 2014-08-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: biotope, bridge, environmental impact, wildlife








C_2014448EN.01000201.xml










15.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 448/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Grüne Liga Sachsen e. V. and Others v Freistaat Sachsen
(Case C-399/14)
(2014/C 448/02)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Grüne Liga Sachsen e. V. and Others

Defendant: Freistaat Sachsen

Intervener: Landeshauptstadt Dresden

Other party: Der Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (‘the Habitats Directive’) to be interpreted as meaning that a construction project for a bridge which does not directly serve the management of the site and which was authorised before that site was included in the list of sites of Community importance must be the subject of an impact assessment prior to its implementation if the site was included in that list after authorisation was granted but before the project was implemented and only a risk assessment/preliminary assessment was undertaken before the authorisation was granted?










2.


If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
When undertaking a subsequent review, must the national authority observe the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive where it wanted to use those provisions as a precautionary basis for the risk assessment/preliminary assessment preceding the grant of the authorisation?










3.


If question 1 is answered in the affirmative and question 2 in the negative:
What requirements should be applied under Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive to a subsequent review of an authorisation granted for a project and to what date should the review relate?










4.


In the context of supplementary proceedings seeking to remedy an error found in a subsequent review under Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive or in an impact assessment under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, is account to be taken, by appropriate amendments to the review requirements, of the fact that the structure was permitted to be constructed and put into service because the planning decision was immediately enforceable and proceedings for interim measures had been dismissed with final effect? In any event, does that apply to an alternative subsequent review which is necessary in the context of a decision under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive?






(1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.