do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-364/12: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC Kindii) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark CLEANIC Kindii — Earlier Community word marks CLINIQUE — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier marks — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, pharmaceutical product, polishing and scouring preparations, pulp and paper industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015213EN.01002801.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/28





Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC Kindii)
(Case T-364/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark CLEANIC Kindii - Earlier Community word marks CLINIQUE - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 213/48)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Harper Hygienics S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: initially R. Rumpel, and subsequently D. Rzążewska and G. Pietras, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Clinique Laboratories, LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: initially V. von Bomhard and A. Renck, lawyers, and K. Hughes, Solicitor, and subsequently K. Hughes)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 May 2012 (Case R 1135/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Clinique Laboratories, LLC and Harper Hygienics S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the action;










2.


orders Harper Hygienics S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Clinique Laboratories, LLC.






(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.
Case C-219/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2015 — Elisabeth Schmitt v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH
Date: 2015-05-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: audit, medical device, product quality, production control, quality control of industrial products








C_2015279EN.01001702.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2015 — Elisabeth Schmitt v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH
(Case C-219/15)
(2015/C 279/21)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Elisabeth Schmitt

Defendant: TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH

Questions referred

Is it the purpose and intention of the Directive (1) that, in the case of Class III medical devices, the notified body responsible for auditing the quality system, examining the design of the product and surveillance acts in order to protect all potential patients and may therefore, in the event of a culpable infringement of an obligation, have direct and unlimited liability towards the patients concerned?
Does it follow from the aforementioned points of Annex II to Directive 93/42/EEC that, in the case of Class III medical devices, the notified body responsible for auditing the quality system, examining the design of the product and surveillance is subject to a general obligation to examine devices, or at least to examine them where there is due cause?
Does it follow from the aforementioned points of Annex II to Directive 93/42/EEC that, in the case of Class III medical devices, the notified body responsible for auditing the quality system, examining the design of the product and surveillance is subject to a general obligation to examine the manufacturer’s business records and/or to carry out unannounced inspections, or at least to do so where there is due cause?


(1)  Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1), Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 90/385/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices, Council Directive 93/42/EEC concerning medical devices and Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 2007 L 247, p. 21).
Case T-277/15: Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Permapore v OHIM — José Joaquim Oliveira II - Jardins & Afins (Terraway)
Date: 2015-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, floor coverings, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015245EN.01004201.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/42





Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Permapore v OHIM — José Joaquim Oliveira II - Jardins & Afins (Terraway)
(Case T-277/15)
(2015/C 245/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Permapore Ltd (Nenagh, Tipperary, Ireland) (represented by: J. Sales, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins Lda (Grijó, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark including the word element ‘Terraway’ — Application for registration No 11 988 301

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2015 in Case R 2496/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM and substitute it with one which makes a ruling or which orders that a ruling be made — at length — on the substantive/material issues, and not just the issue of whether the court fee was paid in good time;





Pleas in law







—


The applicant claims that he paid the fee for appeal, provided for in Article 60 of Regulation No 207/2009, on 20 November 2014;










—


In terms of the substance of the case, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 52(1)(a) and (b), Article 7(1)(g) and the last part of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7520 — Bain Capital Investors/TI Fluid Systems) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-05-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, vehicle parts








C_2015158EN.01000401.xml










13.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/4





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7520 — Bain Capital Investors/TI Fluid Systems)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 158/02)
On 5 May 2015, 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 English 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 32015M7520. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.