do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-147/14: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Loutfi Management Propriété Intellectuelle SARL v AMJ Meatproducts NV, Halalsupply NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9(1)(b) — Effects — Rights conferred by a Community trade mark — Identical or similar signs — Prohibition of use — Likelihood of confusion — Assessment — Taking into consideration the use of a language other than an official language of the European Union)
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, product designation, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015279EN.01001301.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/13






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Loutfi Management Propriété Intellectuelle SARL v AMJ Meatproducts NV, Halalsupply NV
(Case C-147/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9(1)(b) - Effects - Rights conferred by a Community trade mark - Identical or similar signs - Prohibition of use - Likelihood of confusion - Assessment - Taking into consideration the use of a language other than an official language of the European Union))
(2015/C 279/15)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Loutfi Management Propriété Intellectuelle SARL

Defendants: AMJ Meatproducts NV, Halalsupply NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess the likelihood of confusion that may exist between a Community trade mark and a sign which cover identical or similar goods and which both contain a dominant Arabic word in Latin and Arabic script, those words being visually similar, in circumstances where the relevant public for the Community trade mark and for the sign at issue has a basic knowledge of written Arabic, the meaning and pronunciation of those words must be taken into account.


(1)  
            OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.
Case F-67/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge Chamber) of 25 June 2015 — Mikulik v Council (Civil Service — Officials — Probationary period — Extension of probationary period — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Probation carried out under irregular conditions)
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, damages, dismissal, probationary period, public service








C_2015254EN.01002402.xml










3.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 254/24





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge Chamber) of 25 June 2015 — Mikulik v Council
(Case F-67/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Probationary period - Extension of probationary period - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Probation carried out under irregular conditions))
(2015/C 254/27)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Filip Mikulik (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of his probationary period and for compensation for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Mikulik to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014, p. 26.
Case C-242/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mannheim — Germany) — Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v Gerhard und Jürgen Vogel GbR, Jürgen Vogel, Gerhard Vogel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community plant variety rights — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Derogation provided for in Article 14 — Use by farmers of the product of the harvest for propagating purposes without the holder’s authorisation — Farmers under an obligation to pay equitable remuneration for such use — Period within which that remuneration must be paid in order to be able to benefit from the derogation — Whether it is possible for the holder to have recourse to Article 94 — Infringement)
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: deadline for payment, indemnification, plant propagation, protection of plant life








C_2015279EN.01001502.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/15






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mannheim — Germany) — Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v Gerhard und Jürgen Vogel GbR, Jürgen Vogel, Gerhard Vogel
(Case C-242/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community plant variety rights - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Derogation provided for in Article 14 - Use by farmers of the product of the harvest for propagating purposes without the holder’s authorisation - Farmers under an obligation to pay equitable remuneration for such use - Period within which that remuneration must be paid in order to be able to benefit from the derogation - Whether it is possible for the holder to have recourse to Article 94 - Infringement))
(2015/C 279/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Mannheim

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

Defendants: Gerhard und Jürgen Vogel GbR, Jürgen Vogel, Gerhard Vogel

Operative part of the judgment

In order to be able to benefit from the derogation provided for in Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights from the obligation to obtain the authorisation of the holder of the plant variety right concerned, a farmer who has planted propagating material obtained from a protected plant variety (farm-saved seed) without having concluded a contract for so doing with the holder is required to pay the equitable remuneration due under the fourth indent of Article 14(3) of that regulation within the period that expires at the end of the marketing year during which that planting took place, that is, no later than 30 June following the date of reseeding.


(1)  
            OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Case T-305/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — SACE and Sace BT v Commission (State aid — Export credit insurance — Reinsurance granted by a public undertaking to its subsidiary — Capital contributions to cover the subsidiary’s losses — Notion of State aid — Imputability to the State — Private investor test — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, control of State aid, export credit insurance, public sector, reinsurance, subsidiary








C_2015262EN.01001801.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/18





Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — SACE and Sace BT v Commission
(Case T-305/13) (1)

((State aid - Export credit insurance - Reinsurance granted by a public undertaking to its subsidiary - Capital contributions to cover the subsidiary’s losses - Notion of State aid - Imputability to the State - Private investor test - Obligation to state reasons))
(2015/C 262/23)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Servizi assicurativi del commercio estero SpA (SACE) (Rome, Italy); and Sace BT SpA (Rome) (represented by: M. Siragusa and G. Rizza, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, D. Grespan and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/525/EU of 20 March 2013 on the measures SA.23425 (11/C) (ex NN 41/10) implemented by Italy in 2004 and 2009 for SACE BT S.p.A. (OJ 2014 L 239, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 2(2) of Commission Decision 2014/525/EU of 20 March 2013 on the measures SA.23425 (11/C) (ex NN 41/10) implemented by Italy in 2004 and 2009 for SACE BT S.p.A;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Servizi assicurativi del commercio estero SpA (SACE) and Sace BT shall bear their own costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings;










4.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings;










5.


The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
Case C-664/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia)) — VAS ‘Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija’, Latvijas Republikas Satiksmes ministrija v Kaspars Nīmanis (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Driving licence — Renewal by the issuing Member State — Condition of residence in the territory of that Member State — Declaration of residence)
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European driving licence, administrative formalities, legal domicile, residence








C_2015279EN.01000901.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/9






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia)) — VAS ‘Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija’, Latvijas Republikas Satiksmes ministrija v Kaspars Nīmanis
(Case C-664/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Driving licence - Renewal by the issuing Member State - Condition of residence in the territory of that Member State - Declaration of residence))
(2015/C 279/10)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: VAS ‘Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija’, Latvijas Republikas Satiksmes ministrija

Defendant: Kaspars Nīmanis

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which the only way in which a person who applies for the issue or renewal of a driving licence in that Member State can prove that he satisfies the condition of ‘normal residence’, within the meaning of that article, in the territory of that Member State, set out in Article 7(1)(e) and 7(3)(b) of that directive, is to establish that he has a declared place of residence in the territory of the Member State concerned.


(1)  
            OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
Case C-313/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Paris (France) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Eco-Emballages SA v Sphère France SAS, Schweitzer SAS, Carrefour Import SAS, Tissue France SCA, SCA Hygiène Products SAS, WEPA Troyes SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL, Kimberly-Clark SAS, Gopack SAS, Delipapier, CMC France SARL, Paul Hartmann SA, Wepa Lille SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti France SAS, Melitta France SAS, Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG, Scamark SAS, Système U Centrale Nationale SAS
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental protection, packaging product, paper, plastics, waste management








C_2015294EN.01003802.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/38






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Paris (France) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Eco-Emballages SA v Sphère France SAS, Schweitzer SAS, Carrefour Import SAS, Tissue France SCA, SCA Hygiène Products SAS, WEPA Troyes SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL, Kimberly-Clark SAS, Gopack SAS, Delipapier, CMC France SARL, Paul Hartmann SA, Wepa Lille SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti France SAS, Melitta France SAS, Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG, Scamark SAS, Système U Centrale Nationale SAS
(Case C-313/15)
(2015/C 294/49)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Eco-Emballages SA

Defendants: Sphère France SAS, Schweitzer SAS, Carrefour Import SAS, Tissue France SCA, SCA Hygiène Products SAS, WEPA Troyes SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL, Kimberly-Clark SAS, Gopack SAS, Delipapier, CMC France SARL, Paul Hartmann SA, Wepa Lille SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti France SAS, Melitta France SAS, Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG, Scamark SAS, Système U Centrale Nationale SAS

Question referred

Does the concept of packaging, as defined in Article 3 of Directive 94/62/EC, amended by Directive 2004/12/EC (1), include ‘roll cores’ (rolls, tubes, cylinders) around which flexible material, such as paper or plastic film, is wound and sold to consumers?


(1)  Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 26).
Case C-310/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Vincent Deroo-Blanquart v Sony Europe Limited, successor in law to Sony France SA
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising malpractice, computer, consumer information, sale, software, trade information








C_2015294EN.01003701.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/37






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Vincent Deroo-Blanquart v Sony Europe Limited, successor in law to Sony France SA
(Case C-310/15)
(2015/C 294/47)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vincent Deroo-Blanquart

Defendant: Sony Europe Limited, successor in law to Sony France SA

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 5 and 7 of Directive 2005/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (1) be interpreted as meaning that a combined offer consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software constitutes a misleading unfair commercial practice where the manufacturer of the computer has, via its retailer, provided information on each item of pre-installed software, but has not specified the cost of each individual component?










2.


Must Article 5 of Directive 2005/29 be interpreted as meaning that a combined offer consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software constitutes an unfair commercial practice where the manufacturer leaves the consumer no choice other than to accept the software or cancel the sale?










3.


Must Article 5 of Directive 2005/29 be interpreted as meaning that a combined offer consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software constitutes an unfair commercial practice where the consumer is unable to obtain a computer which is not equipped with software from the computer manufacturer?






(1)  
            OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7498 — Compagnie de Saint-Gobain/Sika) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2015209EN.01000901.xml










25.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7498 — Compagnie de Saint-Gobain/Sika)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 209/08)






1.


On 16 June 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Saint-Gobain SA (‘Saint-Gobain’, France) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Sika AG (‘Sika’, Switzerland), by way of purchase of all shares in Schenkler-Winkler Holding AG.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Saint-Gobain: manufacturing of glass, high performance materials, construction products (including mortars) and glass packaging, as well as distribution of building materials,
—   for Sika: manufacturing of specialty chemicals, in particular construction chemicals, sealants and adhesives, manufacturing of mortars.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7498 — Compagnie de Saint-Gobain/Sika, 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’).
Notice in accordance with Article 2(2) of Commission Decision 2005/15/EC — Extension of period allowed to the EFTA Surveillance Authority to take a decision — Logistics in the postal sector (Norway)
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EFTA, Norway, application of EU law, competition law, logistics, postal service








C_2015209EN.01000501.xml










25.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/5





Notice in accordance with Article 2(2) of Commission Decision 2005/15/EC
Extension of period allowed to the EFTA Surveillance Authority to take a decision
Logistics in the postal sector (Norway)
(2015/C 209/04)
On 23 March 2015, the EFTA Surveillance Authority received a request pursuant to Article 30(5) of Directive 2004/17/EC.
This request, filed by Posten Norge AS, concerns the provision of various logistic services in the postal sector in Norway. The request was subject of a notice in OJ C 150, 7 May 2015, p. 4 and EEA Supplement No 26, 7 May 2015, p. 3. The initial period expires on 24 June 2015.
Given that the EFTA Surveillance Authority considered that additional information is needed in order to make a proper assessment of the request, it sent a request for information to Posten Norge AS on 6 May 2015. Hence, in compliance with the provisions laid down in the second sentence of Article 30(6), the period allowed to the EFTA Surveillance Authority to take a decision on this request is extended by one month.
The final period for the EFTA Surveillance Authority to take a decision therefore expires on 24 July 2015.
Case T-662/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Diseños Mireia (M) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark M — Earlier Community word mark dm — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015262EN.01002202.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/22





Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Diseños Mireia (M)
(Case T-662/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark M - Earlier Community word mark dm - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 262/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky and C. Mellein, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Diseños Mireia, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 911/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and Diseños Mireia, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.
Case T-186/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Maquet (LUCEA LED) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark LUCEA LED — Earlier Community word mark LUCEO — Lack of precedence — Claiming of priority — Priority date entered in the register — Priority documents — Examination by OHIM of its own motion — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015262EN.01001602.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/16





Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Maquet (LUCEA LED)
(Case T-186/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark LUCEA LED - Earlier Community word mark LUCEO - Lack of precedence - Claiming of priority - Priority date entered in the register - Priority documents - Examination by OHIM of its own motion - Rights of the defence))
(2015/C 262/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (Borehamwood, United Kingdom), authorised to replace Verus EOOD (represented: initially by S. Vykydal and subsequently by F. Henkel, 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: Maquet SAS (Ardon, France) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 February 2012 (Case R 67/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Capella EOOD and Maquet SAS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Maquet SAS.






(1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.