do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-55/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Formula One Licensing BV v OHIM — Idea Marketing (F1H2O) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark F1H2O — Community, international, Benelux and national word and figurative marks with the element ‘F1’ — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier trade marks — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sport, trade-mark law








C_2015221EN.01000901.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/9





Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Formula One Licensing BV v OHIM — Idea Marketing (F1H2O)
(Case T-55/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark F1H2O - Community, international, Benelux and national word and figurative marks with the element ‘F1’ - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier trade marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 221/11)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Formula One Licensing BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented initially by B. Klingberg and subsequently by K. Sandberg, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Idea Marketing SA (Lausanne, Switzerland) (represented by B. Brisset and O. Vanner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2012 (Case R 1247/2011-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Formula One Licensing BV and Idea Marketing SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Formula One Licensing BV 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 by Idea Marketing SA.






(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
Case T-197/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — La Zaragozana v OHIM — Charles Cooper (GREEN’S) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative trade mark GREEN’S — Earlier national word mark AMBAR GREEN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beer, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015221EN.01001301.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/13





Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — La Zaragozana v OHIM — Charles Cooper (GREEN’S)
(Case T-197/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative trade mark GREEN’S - Earlier national word mark AMBAR GREEN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 221/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: La Zaragozana, SA (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Charles Cooper Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: H. Granado Carpenter and L. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2014 (Case R 1284/2012-5), relating to opposition proceedings between La Zaragozana, SA and Charles Cooper Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders La Zaragozana, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
Case C-322/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Jaouad El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 23 — Agreement conferring jurisdiction — Formal requirements — Communication by electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement — Definition — General terms and conditions of sale which can be consulted and printed from a link which enables them to be displayed in a new window — Click-wrapping)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet, contract terms, electronic commerce, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, transmission network








C_2015236EN.01001901.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/19





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Jaouad El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH
(Case C-322/14) (1)

((Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 23 - Agreement conferring jurisdiction - Formal requirements - Communication by electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement - Definition - General terms and conditions of sale which can be consulted and printed from a link which enables them to be displayed in a new window - Click-wrapping))
(2015/C 236/26)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Krefeld

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jaouad El Majdoub

Defendant: CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the method of accepting the general terms and conditions of a contract for sale by ‘click-wrapping’, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concluded by electronic means, which contains an agreement conferring jurisdiction, constitutes a communication by electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement, within the meaning of that provision, where that method makes it possible to print and save the text of those terms and conditions before the conclusion of the contract.


(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
Case T-56/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Evyap v OHIM — Megusta Trading (nuru) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark representing a wiggly line — Earlier national and international word and figurative marks DURU — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015221EN.01001102.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/11





Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Evyap v OHIM — Megusta Trading (nuru)
(Case T-56/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a wiggly line - Earlier national and international word and figurative marks DURU - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 221/15)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Evyap Sabun Yağ Gliserin Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Megusta Trading GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2013 (Case R 1861/2012-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Evyap Sabun Yağ Gliserin Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. and Megusta Trading GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Evyap Sabun Yağ Gliserin Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.
Case C-560/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) — Finanzamt Ulm v Ingeborg Wagner-Raith (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Derogation — Movement of capital involving the provision of financial services — National legislation providing for flat-rate taxation of investment income from holdings in foreign investment funds — Black funds)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital gains tax, financial services, free movement of capital, investment company, shareholding








C_2015236EN.01001001.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/10





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) — Finanzamt Ulm v Ingeborg Wagner-Raith
(Case C-560/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Derogation - Movement of capital involving the provision of financial services - National legislation providing for flat-rate taxation of investment income from holdings in foreign investment funds - Black funds))
(2015/C 236/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Finanzamt Ulm

Respondent: Ingeborg Wagner-Raith

Intervener: Bundesministerium der Finanzen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 64 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for flat-rate taxation of the income of holders of units in a non-resident investment fund when the latter has not fulfilled certain statutory obligations constitutes a measure which relates to movement of capital involving the provision of financial services within the meaning of that article.


(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
Case T-203/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Mo Industries v OHIM (Splendid) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark Splendid — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, equal treatment, registered trade mark, right to justice, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2015221EN.01001302.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/13





Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Mo Industries v OHIM (Splendid)
(Case T-203/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark Splendid - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration))
(2015/C 221/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mo Industries LLC (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of 7 January 2014 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1542/2013-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Splendid as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Mo Industries LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.
Case C-262/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Neamț — Romania) — Sindicatul Cadrelor Militare Disponibilizate în rezervă și în retragere (SCMD) v Ministerul Finanțelor Publice (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Articles 2, 3(1) and 6 — Prohibition of discrimination based on age — Discrimination on grounds of membership of a socio-professional category or place of work — National legislation prohibiting, subject to certain limits, the combination of a pension with employment income from professional activity in the public sector — Automatic termination of the employment relationship or service relationship)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, age discrimination, civil service, equal treatment, pension scheme, remuneration of work, retired person








C_2015236EN.01001701.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/17





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Neamț — Romania) — Sindicatul Cadrelor Militare Disponibilizate în rezervă și în retragere (SCMD) v Ministerul Finanțelor Publice
(Case C-262/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2, 3(1) and 6 - Prohibition of discrimination based on age - Discrimination on grounds of membership of a socio-professional category or place of work - National legislation prohibiting, subject to certain limits, the combination of a pension with employment income from professional activity in the public sector - Automatic termination of the employment relationship or service relationship))
(2015/C 236/23)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Neamt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sindicatul Cadrelor Militare Disponibilizate în rezervă și în retragere (SCMD)

Defendant: Ministerul Finanțelor Publice

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(2) and 3(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation do not apply to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that provides for automatic termination of employment relationships or service relationships of public sector employees benefitting from a pension that is higher than the gross average income who have not opted for continuing that employment relationship or service relationship within a specified time.


(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
Case C-269/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Kansaneläkelaitos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(4) — Service concession — Definition — Aggregation of contracts between a social security authority and taxi companies providing for an electronic scheme for direct reimbursement of transport costs of insured persons and a system of booking journeys)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: invitation to tender, redemption, service concession, services contract, taxi








C_2015236EN.01001801.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/18





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Kansaneläkelaitos
(Case C-269/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(4) - Service concession - Definition - Aggregation of contracts between a social security authority and taxi companies providing for an electronic scheme for direct reimbursement of transport costs of insured persons and a system of booking journeys))
(2015/C 236/24)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

Kansaneläkelaitos

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(4) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that an aggregation of contracts, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, may be considered to constitute a ‘service concession’, within the meaning of that provision, provided that the contracting authority has transferred the entirety of, or a significant share of, the risk which it bears in relation to the economic exploitation of the services; this being a matter which must be determined by the referring court taking into account all the inherent characteristics of the services covered by that aggregation of contracts.


(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
Case T-250/15: Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Speciality Drinks v OHIM — William Grant (CLAN)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcohol, liqueur, registered trade mark, spirits, trade-mark law








C_2015245EN.01003301.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/33





Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Speciality Drinks v OHIM — William Grant (CLAN)
(Case T-250/15)
(2015/C 245/39)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Speciality Drinks Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Pritchard, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: William Grant & Sons Ltd (Dufftown, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘CLAN’ — Application for registration No 10 025 815

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2015 in Case R 220/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and dismiss the opposition;










—


order that a costs award be made in the favour of the applicant and/or that the costs order of the First Board of Appeal be reversed.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal erred in its characterisation of the level of attention of the ‘relevant consumer’ within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


The Board of Appeal failed to decide whether CLAN, when used in conjunction with MACGREGOR, was a fancy (i.e. meaningless) word to the relevant consumer or, in the alternative, was a word with a meaning they understood;










—


The Board of Appeal did not assess the similarity of marks on the correct legal and/or factual basis;










—


The Board of Appeal did not assess the likelihood of confusion on the correct legal and/or factual basis.
Case C-349/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Ministre délégué, chargé du budget v Marlène Pazdziej (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union — Article 12, second paragraph — Tax levied for the benefit of local authorities on persons having the use of or having at their disposal residential premises in their area — Upper limit — Social policy measure — Taking into account salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the European Union to its officials and other servants)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, local tax, remuneration of work, servant (EU), tax relief








C_2015236EN.01002001.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/20





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Ministre délégué, chargé du budget v Marlène Pazdziej
(Case C-349/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union - Article 12, second paragraph - Tax levied for the benefit of local authorities on persons having the use of or having at their disposal residential premises in their area - Upper limit - Social policy measure - Taking into account salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the European Union to its officials and other servants))
(2015/C 236/28)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ministre délégué, chargé du budget

Defendant: Marlène Pazdziej

Operative part of the judgment

The second paragraph of Article 12 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which takes into consideration salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the Union to its officials and other servants in order to determine the upper limit on liability with respect to a residence tax levied for the benefit of local communities, with a view to the possible granting of relief from it.


(1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.