do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-238/15: Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — Meda (Zimara)
Date: 2015-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetics industry, pharmaceutical product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015228EN.01002301.xml










13.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/23





Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — Meda (Zimara)
(Case T-238/15)
(2015/C 228/28)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meda AB (Solna, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Zimara’ — Application for registration No 9 782 764

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2015 in Case R 636/2014-5

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 8(1)(b) CTMR.
Case C-516/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Dimensione Direct Sales Srl, Michele Labianca v Knoll International SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 4(1) — Distribution right — Concept of ‘distribution to the public’ — Offer for sale and advertising by a trader of a Member State on its website, by direct mail and in the press in another Member State — Reproductions of protected furniture for sale without the consent of the holder of the exclusive distribution right — Offer or advertising not leading to the purchase of the original or copies of a protected work)
Date: 2015-05-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, approximation of laws, copyright, exclusive distribution agreement, reprography, sale








C_2015236EN.01000701.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/7





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Dimensione Direct Sales Srl, Michele Labianca v Knoll International SpA
(Case C-516/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 4(1) - Distribution right - Concept of ‘distribution to the public’ - Offer for sale and advertising by a trader of a Member State on its website, by direct mail and in the press in another Member State - Reproductions of protected furniture for sale without the consent of the holder of the exclusive distribution right - Offer or advertising not leading to the purchase of the original or copies of a protected work))
(2015/C 236/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Dimensione Direct Sales Srl, Michele Labianca

Defendant: Knoll International SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that it allows a holder of an exclusive right to distribute a protected work to prevent an offer for sale or a targeted advertisement of the original or a copy of that work, even if it is not established that that advertisement gave rise to the purchase of the protected work by an EU buyer, in so far as that advertisement invites consumers of the Member State in which that work is protected by copyright to purchase it.


(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
Case T-363/13: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC intimate) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark CLEANIC intimate — 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, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015213EN.01003002.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/30





Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC intimate)
(Case T-363/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark CLEANIC intimate - 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 213/52)
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, lawyer, and K. Hughes, Solicitor, and subsequently K. Hughes)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2013 (Case R 606/2012-5), 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 274, 21.9.2013.
Case T-608/13: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — easyGroup IP Licensing v OHIM — Tui (easyAir-tours) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark easyAir-tours — Earlier national figurative mark airtours Ticket Factory — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No similarity between the signs — No likelihood of confusion — Power to alter decisions — Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic commerce, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, travel agency








C_2015213EN.01003201.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/32





Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — easyGroup IP Licensing v OHIM — Tui (easyAir-tours)
(Case T-608/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark easyAir-tours - Earlier national figurative mark airtours Ticket Factory - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No similarity between the signs - No likelihood of confusion - Power to alter decisions - Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 213/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Day and K. Osgerby, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Tui AG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: D. von Schultz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1029/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Tui AG and easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1029/2012-1);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd;










4.


Orders Tui AG to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
Case T-665/14 P: Order of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Klar and Fernandez Fernandez v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Staff Committee of the Commission — Revocation by the Luxembourg local section of one of its members appointed to the central staff committee — Decision refusing to recognise the lawfulness of the revocation decision — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible — Non respect of the pre-litigation procedure — Measure adversely affecting a person — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2015-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Luxembourg, civil service, dismissal, trade union election, union representative








C_2015221EN.01001901.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/19





Order of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Klar and Fernandez Fernandez v Commission
(Case T-665/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Staff Committee of the Commission - Revocation by the Luxembourg local section of one of its members appointed to the central staff committee - Decision refusing to recognise the lawfulness of the revocation decision - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible - Non respect of the pre-litigation procedure - Measure adversely affecting a person - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
(2015/C 221/26)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Robert Klar (Grevenmacher, Luxembourg) and Francisco Fernandez Fernandez (Steinsel, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and J. Currall, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2014 in Klar and Fernandez Fernandez v Commission (F-114/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:192), seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed;










2.


Mr Robert Klar and Mr Francisco Fernandez Fernandez are ordered to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.
Case T-162/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Niki Luftfahrt v Commission (Competition — Mergers — Air transport — Decision declaring the merger compatible with the common market — Assessment of the effects of the merger on competition — Undertakings)
Date: 2015-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: air transport, economic concentration, merger control








C_2015213EN.01002402.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/24





Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Niki Luftfahrt v Commission
(Case T-162/10) (1)

((Competition - Mergers - Air transport - Decision declaring the merger compatible with the common market - Assessment of the effects of the merger on competition - Undertakings))
(2015/C 213/44)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Niki Luftfahrt GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Asenbauer and A. Habeler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: S. Noë, R. Sauer and N. von Lingen, and subsequently by: S. Noë, R. Sauer and H. Leupold, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Austria (represented initially by: C. Pesendorfer, E. Riedl and A. Posch, and subsequently by: C. Pesendorfer and M. Klamert, acting as Agents); Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented initially by: S. Völcker and A. Israel, and subseqeuntly by: S. Völcker and J. Orologas, lawyers), and Österreichische Industrieholding AG (Vienna) (represented by: H. Kristoferitsch, P. Lewisch and B. Kofler-Senoner, lawyers)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C (2009) 6690 final of 28 August 2009 declaring a merger compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.5440 — Lufthansa/Austrian Airlines).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Niki Luftfahrt GmbH to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, Österreichische Industrieholding AG and Deutsche Lufthansa AG.










3.


Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
Information concerning the signature of the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union
Date: 2015-05-13
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European neighbourhood policy, Protocol (EU), Union for the Mediterranean, accession to the European Union, association agreement (EU), framework agreement, signature of an agreement








L_2015120EN.01000101.xml










13.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 120/1







Information concerning the signature of the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union

The above Protocol between the European Union and the Republic of Lebanon was signed in Brussels on 1 April 2015.
Case C-182/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Industrial Tribunal (Northern Ireland) — United Kingdom) — Valerie Lyttle and Others v Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1)(a) — Meaning of ‘establishment’ — Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant)
Date: 2015-05-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, collective dismissal, establishment, social policy, worker information








C_2015236EN.01000202.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/2





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Industrial Tribunal (Northern Ireland) — United Kingdom) — Valerie Lyttle and Others v Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Limited
(Case C-182/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1)(a) - Meaning of ‘establishment’ - Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant))
(2015/C 236/03)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Industrial Tribunal (Northern Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings


Claimants: Valerie Lyttle, Sarah Louise Halliday, Clara Lyttle, Tanya McGerty

Respondent: Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Limited

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘establishment’ in Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted in the same way as the term in Article 1(1)(a)(i) of that directive.
Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that lays down an obligation to inform and consult workers in the event of the dismissal, within a period of 90 days, of at least 20 workers from a particular establishment of an undertaking, and not where the aggregate number of dismissals across all of the establishments or across some of the establishments of an undertaking over the same period reaches or exceeds the threshold of 20 workers.


(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7593 — Alcoa/RTI International Metals) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-05-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aluminium, economic concentration, merger control, metallurgical industry, titanium








C_2015158EN.01001601.xml










13.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/16





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7593 — Alcoa/RTI International Metals)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 158/10)






1.


On 4 May 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Alcoa Inc., USA (‘Alcoa’) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking RTI International Metals, Inc., USA (‘RTI’) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Alcoa: active in lightweight metals engineering, including the production and sale of alumina, primary aluminum, and fabricated aluminium,
—   for RTI: producer of titanium input products, and of extruded and machined components, for aerospace, defense, energy, medical device, and other consumer and industrial applications.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7593 — Alcoa/RTI International Metals, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Case T-315/15: Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Vince v OHIM (ELECTRIC HIGHWAY)
Date: 2015-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, energy transport, registered trade mark, soft energy, trade-mark law








C_2015406EN.01003102.xml










7.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/31






Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Vince v OHIM (ELECTRIC HIGHWAY)
(Case T-315/15)
(2015/C 406/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dale Vince (Gloucestershire, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Longstaff, barrister)

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 ‘ELECTRIC HIGHWAY’ — Application for registration No 010655819

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2015 in Case R 1442/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


allow the applicant’s application for the mark to proceed in full to registration;










—


order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Incorrect interpretation of the meaning of the mark in relation to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Incorrect interpretation of the relevant services in Class 39;










—


The meaning of the mark asserted by the Board does not describe the services in any event;










—


Incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-511/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Niki Luftfahrt v Commission (State aid — Restructuring aid granted by Austria to the Austrian Airlines group — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market, subject to compliance with certain conditions — Privatisation of the Austrian Airlines group — Determination of the recipient of the aid — Guidelines for State aid for the rescue and restructuring of undertakings in difficulty)
Date: 2015-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Austria, Germany, State aid, aid for restructuring, air transport, company in difficulties, control of State aid








C_2015213EN.01002401.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/24





Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Niki Luftfahrt v Commission
(Case T-511/09) (1)

((State aid - Restructuring aid granted by Austria to the Austrian Airlines group - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market, subject to compliance with certain conditions - Privatisation of the Austrian Airlines group - Determination of the recipient of the aid - Guidelines for State aid for the rescue and restructuring of undertakings in difficulty))
(2015/C 213/43)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Niki Luftfahrt GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Asenbauer and A. Habeler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Martenczuk and K. Gross, acting as Agents, and G. Quardt, lawyer, and subsequently by: B. Martenczuk and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and G. Quardt and J. Lipinsky, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and M. Klamert, acting as Agents); Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented initially by: H.-J. Niemeyer, H. Ehlers and M. Rosenberg and subsequently by: H.-J. Niemeyer, H. Ehlers, C. Kovács and S. Völcker, lawyers); Austrian Airlines AG (Vienna) (represented initially by: H.-J. Niemeyer, H. Ehlers and M. Rosenberg and subsequently by: H.-J. Niemeyer, H. Ehlers, C. Kovács and S. Völcker, lawyers), and Österreichische Industrieholding AG (Vienna) (represented by: T. Zivny, P. Lewisch and H. Kristoferitsch, lawyers)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2010/137/EC of 28 August 2009, State aid C 6/2009 (ex N 663/2008) — Austria Austrian Airlines — restructuring plan (OJ 2010 L 59, p. 1), declaring the restructuring aid granted by the Republic of Austria to the Austrian Airlines Group in the course of its purchase by the Lufthansa group to be compatible with the common market, subject to compliance with certain conditions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Niki Luftfahrt GmbH to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, Österreichische Industrieholding AG, Deutsche Lufthansa AG and Austrian Airlines AG.










3.


Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.