do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-08-03
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2015254EN.01000101.xml










3.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 254/1





Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 254/01)

Last publication


OJ C 245, 27.7.2015


Past publications


OJ C 236, 20.7.2015


OJ C 228, 13.7.2015


OJ C 221, 6.7.2015


OJ C 213, 29.6.2015


OJ C 205, 22.6.2015


OJ C 198, 15.6.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case F-112/15: Action brought on August 3rd 2015 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-08-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, promotion, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015320EN.01005501.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/55





Action brought on August 3rd 2015 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-112/15)
(2015/C 320/76)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Commission not to include the applicant on the list of promoted officials under the promotion exercise of 2014.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 14 November 2014 of the Appointing Authority of the European Commission, issued by means of the Administrative Notice No 41-2014, establishing the list of promoted officials under the promotion exercise of 2014 in so far as the name of the Applicant is not included therein;










—


order the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant.
Case T-446/15: Action brought on 3 August 2015 — Indecopi/OHIM — Synergy Group (PISCO)
Date: 2015-08-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, spirits, trade-mark law








C_2015320EN.01004201.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/42





Action brought on 3 August 2015 — Indecopi/OHIM — Synergy Group (PISCO)
(Case T-446/15)
(2015/C 320/59)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y de la Protección de la Propiedad Intelectual (Indecopi) (San Borja, Peru) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero and A. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Synergy Group sp. z o.o. (Wrocław, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


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

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘PISCO’ — Application for registration No 1016 7674

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 June 2015 in Case R 1291/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


alter the contested decision, by declaring that the requirements for the application of the relative ground for refusal laid down in Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 are met in the present case, or, in the alternative, annul that decision; and










—


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





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 110/2008;










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-447/15: Action brought on 3 August 2015 — Indecopi v OHIM — Synergy Group (PISCO SOUR)
Date: 2015-08-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, spirits, trade-mark law








C_2015320EN.01004301.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/43





Action brought on 3 August 2015 — Indecopi v OHIM — Synergy Group (PISCO SOUR)
(Case T-447/15)
(2015/C 320/60)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y de la Protección de la Propiedad Intelectual (Indecopi) (San Borja, Peru) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero and A. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Synergy Group sp. z o.o. (Wrocław, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


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

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘PISCO SOUR’ — Application for registration No 1016 7682

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 June 2015 in Case R 1292/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


alter the contested decision, by declaring that the requirements for the application of the relative ground for refusal laid down in Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 are met in the present case; and










—


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





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 110/2008;










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-113/15: Action brought on August 3rd 2015 — ZZ e.a. v Commission
Date: 2015-08-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, promotion, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015320EN.01005502.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/55





Action brought on August 3rd 2015 — ZZ e.a. v Commission
(Case F-113/15)
(2015/C 320/77)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: ZZ e.a. (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions of the Commission not to include the applicants on the list of promoted officials under the promotion exercise of 2014.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 14 November 2014 of the Appointing Authority of the European Commission, issued by means of’ the Administrative Notice No 41-2014, establishing the list of promoted officials under the promotion exercise of 2014 in so far as the names of the Applicants are not included;










—


order the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Applicants.
Case C-427/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 3 August 2015 — New Wave CZ a.s. v Alltoys spol. s r. o.
Date: 2015-08-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damages, distributive trades, indemnification, intellectual property, interpretation of the law, judicial proceedings, originating product








C_2015371EN.01001501.xml










9.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 3 August 2015 — New Wave CZ a.s. v Alltoys spol. s r. o.
(Case C-427/15)
(2015/C 371/17)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: New Wave CZ a.s.

Defendant: Alltoys spol. s r. o.

Question referred

Must Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights be interpreted as meaning that it is in the context of proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right if, after the definitive termination of proceedings in which it was declared that an intellectual property right was infringed, the applicant in separate proceedings seeks information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services by which that intellectual property right is infringed (for example, for the purpose of being able to quantify the damage precisely and subsequently seek compensation for it)?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.