do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-625/14: Order of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Representation of a sphere) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark representing a sphere — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2015-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food industry, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015311EN.01004701.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/47





Order of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Representation of a sphere)
(Case T-625/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark representing a sphere - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2015/C 311/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2014 (Case R 168/2014-5) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a sphere as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
Case T-330/15: Action brought on 24 June 2015 — Keil v OHIM — Naturafit Diätetische Lebensmittelproduktions (BasenCitrate)
Date: 2015-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food supplement, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015279EN.01004402.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/44






Action brought on 24 June 2015 — Keil v OHIM — Naturafit Diätetische Lebensmittelproduktions (BasenCitrate)
(Case T-330/15)
(2015/C 279/55)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Rudolf Keil (Grevenbroich, Germany) (represented by: J. Sachs, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Naturafit Diätetische Lebensmittelproduktions GmbH (Röttenbach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘BasenCitrate’ — Community trade mark No 11 120 284

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2015 in Case R 1541/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs, including those which were incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-328/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 June 2015 by FK (*) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 April 2015 in Case F-87/12 RENV FK (*) v Commission
Date: 2015-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: indemnification, servant (EU), temporary employment, work contract




C_2015279EN.01004301.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/43






Appeal brought on 24 June 2015 by FK (*1) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 April 2015 in Case F-87/12 RENV FK (*1) v Commission
(Case T-328/15 P)
(2015/C 279/53)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: FK (*1)


Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-87/12 RENV FK (*1)
 v Commission;










—


annul the Commission’s decision of 18 November 2011 to the extent that it fixes 31 March 2012 as the limit of the extension period for the appellant’s temporary staff contract;










—


order the Commission to pay a provisional sum of 1 euro by way of compensation for the damage suffered by the appellant, together with the costs of the four sets of legal proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant raises three grounds in support of his appeal.






1.


First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the adversarial principle and an error of law. The appellant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) (i) wrongly rejected as inadmissible, in the light of the rule of correspondence, the pleas in law based on a manifest error of assessment and the principle of sound administration, even though the Commission had never raised an objection of inadmissibility and the parties had never had the opportunity to take a position on that alleged inadmissibility, and (ii) in any event, erred in law in finding that the appellant had not complied with the rule of correspondence.










2.


Second ground of appeal, alleging a distortion of the appellant’s arguments, a breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons and an error of law, as the CST held that it was not necessary to give a ruling on the interpretation of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘the CEOS’) and that the judgment of 5 October 1995 in Alexopoulou v Commission (T-17/95, ECR — SC, EU:T:1995:176) was entirely irrelevant for the purposes of resolving the dispute.










3.


Third ground of appeal, alleging a breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons and an error of law, as the CST held that it was necessary to receive a specific request from the appellant in order to derogate from the mechanical application of the six-year rule, thereby disregarding the fact that the contested decision was an act adversely affecting the appellant.






(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7640 — LBO France/IKKS) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-06-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: clothing industry, economic concentration, footwear industry, investment company, merger control








C_2015207EN.01000301.xml










24.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7640 — LBO France/IKKS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 207/02)
On 17 June 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 French language 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 32015M7640. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
DRAFT General Budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016 - General Introduction - General statement of revenue - General statement of revenue and expenditure by section
Date: 2015-06-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU expenditure, draft budget (EU), financial year, financing of the EU budget, general budget (EU)



COM_2015_300_808810_EN_ACTE_1_f_1.docx






EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 24.6.2015
COM(2015) 300 final
DRAFT General Budgetof the European Unionfor the financial year 2016

- General Introduction- General statement of revenue- General statement of revenue and expenditure by section






DOCUMENTS





   
   





DRAFT General Budget
of the European Union
for the financial year 2016




— 
   General introduction


— 
   General statement of revenue


— 
   General statement of revenue and expenditure by section: 


   — 
   Section 1:   European Parliament


—  
   Section 2:   European Council and Council


 
   —  
   Section 3:   Commission


—  
   Section 4:   Court of Justice of the European Union


 
   —  
   Section 5:   Court of Auditors


—  
   Section 6:   European Economic and Social Committee


 
   —  
   Section 7:   Committee of the Regions


—  
   Section 8:   European Ombudsman


 
   —  
   Section 9:   European Data Protection Supervisor


 
   —  
   Section 10: European External Action Service 






http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/www/index-en.htm
Case T-621/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DINKOOL — Earlier international figurative mark DIN — Earlier national business identifier DIN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, furniture industry, household article, maintenance, paper, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015262EN.01002601.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/26





Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL)
(Case T-621/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DINKOOL - Earlier international figurative mark DIN - Earlier national business identifier DIN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 262/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria (Luanda, Angola) (represented by: A. Oliveira, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by M. Bagh, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2014 (Case R 1312/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV and Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda, to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);










3.


Orders DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
Joined Cases C-549/12 P and C-54/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 June 2015 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Appeals — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Reduction of financial assistance — Method of calculation by extrapolation — European Commission’s procedure for the adoption of the decision — Failure to comply with the time-limit — Consequences)
Date: 2015-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Berlin, European Regional Development Fund, Thuringia, financial aid, operational programme








C_2015279EN.01000201.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/2






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 June 2015 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands
(Joined Cases C-549/12 P and C-54/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Reduction of financial assistance - Method of calculation by extrapolation - European Commission’s procedure for the adoption of the decision - Failure to comply with the time-limit - Consequences))
(2015/C 279/02)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, acting as Agent, and by U. Karpenstein, C. Johann, C. von Donat and J. Lipinsky, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Conte and A. Steiblytė, Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and N. Rouam, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and B. Koopman, Agents) (C-54/13 P)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union in Germany v Commission (T-265/08, EU:T:2012:434) and Germany v Commission (T-270/08, EU:T:2012:612);










2)


Annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 1690 final of 30 April 2008 reducing the financial assistance granted from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the Operational Programme in the Objective 1 area of the Land Thüringen (Germany) (1994-1999), in accordance with Commission Decision C(94) 1939/5 of 5 August 1994, and of Commission Decision C(2008) 1615 final of 29 April 2008 reducing the financial assistance granted from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) by Commission Decision C(94) 1973 of 5 August 1994 to the Operational Programme for Berlin (East) (Germany) relating to Objective No 1 (1994-1999);










3)


Orders the European Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Federal Republic of Germany both in the context of the procedure at first instance and in relation to these appeals;










4)


Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.

OJ C 86 23.3.2013.
Case T-527/13: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Italy v Commission (State aid — Milk levy — Aid granted by Italy to milk producers — Aid scheme linked to the reimbursement of the milk levy — Conditional decision — Failure to comply with a condition which allowed the aid to be considered compatible with the internal market — De minimis aid — Existing aid — New aid — Alteration to existing aid — Procedure for reviewing State aid — Obligation to state reasons — Burden of proof)
Date: 2015-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, aid to agriculture, control of State aid, dairy industry, deadline for payment, milk








C_2015262EN.01001902.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/19





Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-527/13) (1)

((State aid - Milk levy - Aid granted by Italy to milk producers - Aid scheme linked to the reimbursement of the milk levy - Conditional decision - Failure to comply with a condition which allowed the aid to be considered compatible with the internal market - De minimis aid - Existing aid - New aid - Alteration to existing aid - Procedure for reviewing State aid - Obligation to state reasons - Burden of proof))
(2015/C 262/25)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by S. Fiorentino and P. Grasso, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, D. Nardi and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/665/EU of 17 July 2013 on the aid scheme SA.33726 (11/C) (ex SA.33726 (11/NN)) granted by Italy (deferral of payment of the milk levy) (OJ 2013 L 309, p. 40).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 1(2) of Commission Decision 2013/665/EU of 17 July 2013 on the aid scheme SA.33726 (11/C) (ex SA.33726 (11/NN)) granted by Italy (deferral of payment of the milk levy);










2.


Annuls Articles 2 and 4 of that decision in so far as they concern, first, the aid scheme covered by Article 1(2) and, secondly, the individual aid granted pursuant to that aid scheme;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders the Italian Republic and the Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.
Case T-552/14: Order of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark Extra — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2015-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015311EN.01004502.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/45





Order of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra)
(Case T-552/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark Extra - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2015/C 311/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 199/2014-5) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign Extra as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
Case T-333/15: Action brought on 24 June 2015 — Josel v OHIM — Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland (NN)
Date: 2015-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, insurance, investment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015262EN.01003702.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/37





Action brought on 24 June 2015 — Josel v OHIM — Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland (NN)
(Case T-333/15)
(2015/C 262/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Josel, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘NN’ — Application for registration No 1 066 097

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2015 in Case R 1531/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, insofar as, in dismissing in part the appeal brought by the applicant for the trade mark, it upholds the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting opposition B 1 887 887 and granting Community trade mark (international registration) No 1 066 097 ‘NN’, Class 36, (word mark);










—


order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-329/15: Action brought on 24 June 2015 — Certuss Dampfautomaten v OHIM — Universal for Engineering Industries (Universal 1800 TC)
Date: 2015-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, industrial electric machinery, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015279EN.01004401.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/44






Action brought on 24 June 2015 — Certuss Dampfautomaten v OHIM — Universal for Engineering Industries (Universal 1800 TC)
(Case T-329/15)
(2015/C 279/54)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Certuss Dampfautomaten GmbH & Co. KG (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: J. Sroka, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Universal for Engineering Industries SAE (Giza, Egypt)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Universal 1800 TC’ — Application for registration No 10 632 503

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 April 2015 in Case R 1303/2014-2

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) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-553/14: Order of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark Extra — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2015-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food industry, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015311EN.01004601.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/46





Order of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra)
(Case T-553/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark Extra - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2015/C 311/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 218/2014-5) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign Extra as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.