do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-146/15: Action brought on 23 March 2015 — hyphen v OHIM — Skylotec
Date: 2015-03-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2015171EN.01003402.xml










26.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/34





Action brought on 23 March 2015 — hyphen v OHIM — Skylotec
(Case T-146/15)
(2015/C 171/41)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: hyphen GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Skylotec GmbH (Neuwied, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a polygon) — Community trade mark No 2 255 537

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 March 2015 in Case R 1506/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-162/14: Order of the President of the Court of 23 March 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Date: 2015-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, infringement of EU law, professional qualifications








C_2015213EN.01002101.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/21





Order of the President of the Court of 23 March 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-162/14) (1)

(2015/C 213/34)
Language of the case: Polish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.
Case T-134/15: Action brought on 23 March 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM (SOCIAL.COM)
Date: 2015-03-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, registered trade mark, sales promotion, trade-mark law








C_2015171EN.01003201.xml










26.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/32





Action brought on 23 March 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM
(SOCIAL.COM)
(Case T-134/15)
(2015/C 171/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: salesforce.com, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, M. Maier, 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 ‘SOCIAL.COM’ — Application for registration No 12 245 411

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 January 2015 in Case R 1752/2014-4

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) in conjuction with Article 7 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjuction with Article 7 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-6/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 23 March 2015 — Borghans v Commission (Civil service — Remuneration — Survivor’s pension — First paragraph of Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Divorced spouse of a deceased member of the permanent staff — Existence of alimony on the date of death of the member of the permanent staff — Article 42 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Time-limits for applying for payment of pension entitlements)
Date: 2015-03-23
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, divorced person, pension scheme, remuneration of work, survivor's benefit








C_2015155EN.01004102.xml










11.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/41





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 23 March 2015 — Borghans v Commission
(Case F-6/14) (1)

((Civil service - Remuneration - Survivor’s pension - First paragraph of Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Divorced spouse of a deceased member of the permanent staff - Existence of alimony on the date of death of the member of the permanent staff - Article 42 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Time-limits for applying for payment of pension entitlements))
(2015/C 155/60)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Julia Borghans (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: F. Van der Schueren and C. Lefèvre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and A.-C. Simon, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision refusing to grant the applicant a survivor’s pension following the death of her ex-spouse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1)


Annuls the decision of 3 June 2013 by which the European Commission refused to grant a survivor’s pension to Mrs Borghans;










2)


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mrs Borghans.






(1)  OJ C 85, 22/3/2014, p. 28.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice (EU)








C_2015096EN.01000101.xml










23.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 96/1





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

(2015/C 096/01)

Last publication


OJ C 89, 16.3.2015


Past publications


OJ C 81, 9.3.2015


OJ C 73, 2.3.2015


OJ C 65, 23.2.2015


OJ C 56, 16.2.2015


OJ C 46, 9.2.2015


OJ C 34, 2.2.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case C-138/15 P: Appeal brought on 23 March 2015 by Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 22 January 2015 in Case T-140/12: Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV v European Medecines Agency (EMA)
Date: 2015-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chronic illness, generic drug, market approval








C_2015190EN.01000301.xml










8.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/3






Appeal brought on 23 March 2015 by Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 22 January 2015 in Case T-140/12: Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV v European Medecines Agency (EMA)
(Case C-138/15 P)
(2015/C 190/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV (represented by: G. Morgan, Solicitor, K. Bacon, Barrister and E.S. Mackenzie, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


Set aside the judgment of the General Court;










—


Annul the decision of the EMA, contained in its letter of 24 January 2012, refusing to validate the appellant’s application for a marketing authorization;










—


Order the EMA to pay the costs of the Appellants.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants advance one ground of appeal, which is that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1). Three distinct errors of law are alleged. First, it is alleged that the General Court misinterpreted Article 8(3) read together with Article 8(1), in that it failed to appreciate that a second similar orphan product authorised under an Article 8(3) derogation cannot attract the reward of market exclusivity that is provided for the first orphan product under Article 8(1).
Second, it erred in concluding that its interpretation of Article 8 does not have the effect of extending the market exclusively attaching to the first product.
Third, the General Court incorrectly described and thus failed properly to address the appellant’s alternative case in respect of the original ground for annulment, which was that even if the second product did in principle benefit from its own period of market exclusivity, that exclusivity should not operate to exclude from the market a generic version of the first product.
The appellant requests that the Court of Justice give final judgment annulling the contested decision.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1.