do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7358 — dnata/Stella)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-11-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, economic concentration, merger control, tourism








C_2014423EN.01000201.xml










26.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7358 — dnata/Stella)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 423/03
On 9 October 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7358. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-778/14: Action brought on 26 November 2014 — Ugly v OHIM — Group Lottuss (COYOTE UGLY)
Date: 2014-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, leisure, registered trade mark, service, trade-mark law








C_2015026EN.01004102.xml










26.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/41





Action brought on 26 November 2014 — Ugly v OHIM — Group Lottuss (COYOTE UGLY)
(Case T-778/14)
(2015/C 026/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Ugly, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: T. St Quintin, Barrister, K. Gilbert and C. Mackey, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Group Lottuss Corp., SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘COYOTE UGLY’ — Community trade mark application No 1 2 26  198

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2014 in Case R 1369/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decisions of the Opposition Division and of the Board of Appeal and remit the opposition back to the Opposition Division for reconsideration;










—


Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Joined Cases C-103/12 and C-165/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 November 2014  — European Parliament (C-103/12), European Commission (C-165/12) v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Decision 2012/19/EU — Legal basis — Article 43(2) and (3) TFEU — Bilateral agreement authorising utilisation of the surplus of allowable catch — Choice of the third country that the European Union authorises to utilise living resources — Exclusive economic zone — Policy decision — Fixing fishing opportunities)
Date: 2014-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU waters, authorised catch, bilateral agreement, exclusive economic zone, exploitation of resources, fishery management, fishery resources, fishing area, third country








C_2015026EN.01000201.xml










26.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/2





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 November 2014 — European Parliament (C-103/12), European Commission (C-165/12) v Council of the European Union
(Joined Cases C-103/12 and C-165/12) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Decision 2012/19/EU - Legal basis - Article 43(2) and (3) TFEU - Bilateral agreement authorising utilisation of the surplus of allowable catch - Choice of the third country that the European Union authorises to utilise living resources - Exclusive economic zone - Policy decision - Fixing fishing opportunities))
(2015/C 026/02)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen, I. Liukkonen and I. Díez Parra, acting as Agents) (C-103/12), European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and E. Paasivirta, acting as Agents) (C-165/12)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová and A. de Gregorio Merino, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Council Decision 2012/19/EU of 16 December 2011 on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Declaration on the granting of fishing opportunities in EU waters to fishing vessels flying the flag of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the exclusive economic zone off the coast of French Guiana;










2.


Maintains the effects of Decision 2012/19/EU until the entry into force, within a reasonable period of time after the date of the present judgment, of a new decision based on the appropriate legal basis, namely Article 43(2) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) TFEU;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;










4.


Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.