do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-218/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Nutrexpa v OHIM — Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property (Cuétara Maria ORO) (Community mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Cuétara Maria ORO — Earlier Community and national figurative marks ORO — Partial refusal of registration — 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, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015221EN.01001001.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/10





Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Nutrexpa v OHIM — Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property (Cuétara Maria ORO)
(Case T-218/13) (1)

((Community mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Cuétara Maria ORO - Earlier Community and national figurative marks ORO - Partial refusal of registration - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 221/13)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Nutrexpa, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, M. Ferrándiz Avendaño and Y. Sastre Canet, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and G. Petrocchi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2013 (case R 2455/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property Srl and Nutrexpa, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Disjoins Case T-218/13 from Case T-217/13 for the purpose of the judgment;










2.


Dismisses the action;










3.


Orders Nutrexpa, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
Case T-232/11: Order of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU law, access to information, action for annulment (EU), environmental protection








C_2015228EN.01002501.xml










13.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/25





Order of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission
(Case T-232/11) (1)

(2015/C 228/30)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.
Joined Cases T-331/10 RENV and T-416/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — Pi-Design and Others (Community figurative trade marks representing a surface with black dots) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative trade marks representing a surface with black dots — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household article, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015221EN.01000601.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/6





Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — Pi-Design and Others (Community figurative trade marks representing a surface with black dots)
(Joined Cases T-331/10 RENV and T-416/10 RENV) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative trade marks representing a surface with black dots - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 221/07)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd (Tsubame-shi, Japan) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Pi-Design AG (Triengen, Switzerland), Bodum France (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France), Bodum Logistics A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by: H. Pernez and R. Löhr, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Cases R 1235/2008-1 and R 1237/2008-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Pi-design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S, on the one hand, and Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd, on the other.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd 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 Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S before the General Court and before the Court of Justice.






(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.
Case T-271/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Nutrexpa v OHIM — Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property (Cuétara MARĺA ORO) (Community mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Cuétara MARÍA ORO — Earlier Community and national figurative marks ORO — Partial refusal of registration — 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, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015221EN.01001101.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/11





Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Nutrexpa v OHIM — Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property (Cuétara MARĺA ORO)
(Case T-271/13) (1)

((Community mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Cuétara MARÍA ORO - Earlier Community and national figurative marks ORO - Partial refusal of registration - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 221/14)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Nutrexpa, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, M. Ferrándiz Avendaño and Y. Sastre Canet, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and G. Petrocchi, lawyers)

Re

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2013 (case R 1285/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property Srl and Nutrexpa, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Nutrexpa, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.
Case C-318/14: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Slovenská autobusová doprava Trnava a.s. v Krajský úřad Olomouckého kraje (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Articles 49 TFEU and 52 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Public transport by rail and by road — Bus transport on urban public transport lines — Carrier established in another Member State and operating through a branch — Requirement to obtain special authorisation — Discretionary power of the competent authority — Public service contract)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, EU law - national law, means of public conveyance, public transport, right of establishment, services of general interest, town traffic, transport company








C_2015320EN.01000802.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/8





Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Slovenská autobusová doprava Trnava a.s. v Krajský úřad Olomouckého kraje
(Case C-318/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Articles 49 TFEU and 52 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Public transport by rail and by road - Bus transport on urban public transport lines - Carrier established in another Member State and operating through a branch - Requirement to obtain special authorisation - Discretionary power of the competent authority - Public service contract))
(2015/C 320/11)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Slovenská autobusová doprava Trnava a.s.

Defendant: Krajský úřad Olomouckého kraje

Operative part of the order

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State requiring only foreign carriers which have a branch office in that Member State to obtain special authorisation issued on a discretionary basis by the competent authorities in order to operate an urban public transport service by road in the territory of that Member State alone.


(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
Case C-546/12 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 May 2015 — Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), Jørn Hansson (Appeal — Community plant variety rights — Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Articles 20 and 76 — Regulation (EC) No 874/2009 — Article 51 — Application to initiate nullity proceedings in respect of Community plant variety rights — Principle of examination by the CPVO of its own motion — Proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO — Substantial evidence)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Community Plant Variety Office, crop production, infringement of EU law, proof








C_2015236EN.01000201.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/2





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 May 2015 — Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), Jørn Hansson
(Case C-546/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community plant variety rights - Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Articles 20 and 76 - Regulation (EC) No 874/2009 - Article 51 - Application to initiate nullity proceedings in respect of Community plant variety rights - Principle of examination by the CPVO of its own motion - Proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO - Substantial evidence))
(2015/C 236/02)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Ralf Schräder (represented by: T. Leidereiter, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad, acting as Agent, and A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt), Jørn Hansson (represented by: G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the appeal;










2)


Orders Mr Ralf Schräder to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.
Case T-252/15: Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Ferrovial and others v Commission
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, amortisation, control of State aid, corporation tax, goodwill, reimbursement of aid, shareholding, tax relief








C_2015245EN.01003501.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/35





Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Ferrovial and others v Commission
(Case T-252/15)
(2015/C 245/41)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Ferrovial, SA (Madrid, Spain), Ferrovial Servicios, SA (Madrid, Spain), Amey UK plc (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez and M. Linares Gil, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought







—


annul European Commission Decision C (2014) 7280 of 15 October 2014, on State aid SA 35550 (13/C) (ex 13/NN) (ex 12/CP) implemented by Spain;










—


in the alternative annul Article 4(2) of that Decision, and










—


order the defendant institution to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in this case is the same as that in Case T-826/14, Spain v Commission, and Case T-12/15, Banco de Santander and Santusa v Commission.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU on the ground of failure to state reasons.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, since, according to the applicants the measure under assessment does not meet the criteria to constitute state aid.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU, Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999, laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, and Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004, implementing Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, since the measure under assessment does not constitute new, unlawful and incompatible aid.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging the invalidity of Article 4(2) of the Third Decision on the ground of infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999, by failing to limit the recovery order in the same terms as the first two decisions did (acquisitions earlier than 21 December 2007).










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging the invalidity of Article 4 of the Third Decision (recovery order) on the ground of infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999, by not excluding indirect operations before 10 March 2005 from the recovery order.
Case C-53/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 — JAS Jet Air Service France (SARL) v European Commission (Appeal — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Community Customs Code — Article 239 — Community Customs Code Implementing Regulation — Article 905 — Importation of jean trousers from the United States — Import duties — Decision declaring the refund of those duties unjustified — No ‘special situation’)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common customs tariff, customs union, import (EU), tariff exemption, textile product








C_2015236EN.01001402.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/14





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 — JAS Jet Air Service France (SARL) v European Commission
(Case C-53/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Community Customs Code - Article 239 - Community Customs Code Implementing Regulation - Article 905 - Importation of jean trousers from the United States - Import duties - Decision declaring the refund of those duties unjustified - No ‘special situation’))
(2015/C 236/19)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: JAS Jet Air Service France (SARL) (represented by: T. Gallois and E. Dereviankine, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, B.-R. Killmann and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders JAS Jet Air Service France SARL to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
Case T-145/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — adidas v OHIM — Shoe Branding Europe (Two parallel stripes on a shoe) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community position mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe — Community and national figurative marks and earlier international registration representing three parallel stripes applied to shoes and clothing — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015221EN.01001201.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/12





Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — adidas v OHIM — Shoe Branding Europe (Two parallel stripes on a shoe)
(Case T-145/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community position mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe - Community and national figurative marks and earlier international registration representing three parallel stripes applied to shoes and clothing - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 221/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented initially by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers, and subsequently by I. Fowler, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by J. Løje, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2013 (Case R 1208/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between adidas AG and Shoe Branding Europe BVBA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 November 2013 (Case R 1208/2012-2);










2.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by adidas AG;










3.


Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.