do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-78/15: Action brought on 16 February 2015 — Mudhook Marketing v OHIM (IPVanish)
Date: 2015-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, data processing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015127EN.01003201.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/32





Action brought on 16 February 2015 — Mudhook Marketing v OHIM (IPVanish)
(Case T-78/15)
(2015/C 127/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mudhook Marketing, Inc. (Winter Park, United States) (represented by: A. Dellmeier and H. Eckermann, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘IPVanish’ — Application for registration No 2 330 271

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 in Case R 1417/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice (EU)








C_2015056EN.01000101.xml










16.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/1





Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 056/01)

Last publication


OJ C 46, 9.2.2015


Past publications


OJ C 34, 2.2.2015


OJ C 26, 26.1.2015


OJ C 16, 19.1.2015


OJ C 7, 12.1.2015


OJ C 462, 22.12.2014


OJ C 448, 15.12.2014

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Action brought on 16 February 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway (Case E-6/15)
Date: 2015-02-16
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Norway, autonomy, building permit, provision of services, single market








C_2015143EN.01001001.xml










30.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 143/10





Action brought on 16 February 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway
(Case E-6/15)
(2015/C 143/11)
An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 16 February 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Xavier Lewis and Clémence Perrin, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
The applicant requests EFTA Court to declare that:






1.


By maintaining in force Sections 20-1, second paragraph and 22-3 of the Planning Building Act, read in conjunction with Sections 9-1 to 9-4 and 11-1 of the Building Regulation, which require undertakings carrying out construction works to obtain an authorisation by local municipalities prior to the beginning of their activity, Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex X of the EEA Agreement (Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market), or, alternatively, Article 36 of the EEA Agreement.










2.


The Kingdom of Norway bears the costs of the proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The case concerns the requirement under Norwegian law (Sections 20-1, second paragraph and 22-3 of the Planning Building Act, read in conjunction with Sections 9-1 to 9-4 and 11-1 of the Building Regulation) for undertakings wishing to carry out construction services in Norway to be approved by local municipalities before they start their activity. Such approval must be obtained before every individual construction project.










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that the requirement amounts to a restriction which cannot be justified under Article 16(1) and (3) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (the ‘Services Directive’) or, alternatively, that such measure amounts to a restriction of freedom to provide services under Article 36 of the EEA Agreement, which cannot be justified under Article 33 of the EEA Agreement.










—


Norway claims that, in principle, such an authorisation scheme is not contrary to the Services Directive since it can be justified under Article 16(1) and (3) of that Directive.
Case F-26/15: Action brought on 16 February 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
Date: 2015-02-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, additional benefit, interest, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015127EN.01004401.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/44





Action brought on 16 February 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
(Case F-26/15)
(2015/C 127/62)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision to reject the applicant’s application to pay him the installation allowance, following his move from Yemen to Brussels, where his wife, from whom he is separated, lives and application to order the defendant to pay the applicant that installation allowance plus interest.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the contested decision of 15 April 2014;










—


As necessary, annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 November 2014;










—


Order the European Parliament to pay the applicant the installation allowance equal to one month’s basic salary plus interest calculated from the dates on which those sums were due under Annex VII of the Staff Regulations;










—


Order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Case F-27/15: Action brought on 16 February 2015 — ZZ and Others v Council
Date: 2015-02-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, action by staff, allowances and expenses, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015127EN.01004402.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/44





Action brought on 16 February 2015 — ZZ and Others v Council
(Case F-27/15)
(2015/C 127/63)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision fixing the rights of the applicants to reimbursement of annual travel expenses under Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the CEOS.

Form of order sought







—


Declare illegal and inapplicable Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations;










—


Annul the decision to cancel all reimbursement of the applicants’ annual travel expenses from 2014;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.