do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-458/15: Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Automobile Club di Brescia v OHIM — Rebel Media (e-miglia)
Date: 2015-08-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor car, registered trade mark, sporting event, trade-mark law








C_2015328EN.01003101.xml










5.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/31





Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Automobile Club di Brescia v OHIM — Rebel Media (e-miglia)
(Case T-458/15)
(2015/C 328/28)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Automobile Club di Brescia (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica and F. Fischetti, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rebel Media Ltd (Wilmslow, United Kingdom)

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 elements ‘e-miglia’ — Application for registration No 9 782 673

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2015 in Case R 1990/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul only paragraphs 3 and 4 of the contested decision;










—


confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 30 May 2014 concerning opposition No B 1 900 540 in its entirety, except for the part relating to compensation of expenses;










—


order the other party to pay the costs, including the costs of all proceedings before OHIM.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-456/15: Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Foodcare v OHIM — Michalczewski (T.G.R. ENERGY DRINK)
Date: 2015-08-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015328EN.01002901.xml










5.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/29





Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Foodcare v OHIM — Michalczewski (T.G.R. ENERGY DRINK)
(Case T-456/15)
(2015/C 328/26)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Foodcare sp. z o.o. (Zabierzów, Poland) (represented by: A. Matusik, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dariusz Michalczewski (Gdańsk, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘T.G.R. ENERGY DRINK’ –Community trade mark No 5 689 237

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2015 in Case R 265/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the contested decision invalid in its entirety;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-440/15 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 2015 by AgriCapital Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 June 2015 in Case T-514/13: AgriCapital Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2015-08-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, agro-industry, investment company, registered trade mark, renewable energy, trade-mark law








C_2016191EN.01000202.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/2





Appeal brought on 10 August 2015 by AgriCapital Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 June 2015 in Case T-514/13: AgriCapital Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Case C-440/15 P)
(2016/C 191/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: AgriCapital Corp. (represented by: P. Meyer, Rechtsanwalt, M. Gramsch, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
By order of 3 March 2016 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1413 of 10 August 2015 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ogulinski kiseli kupus/Ogulinsko kiselo zelje (PDO))
Date: 2015-08-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Croatia, designation of origin, foodstuff, labelling, leaf vegetable, product designation, quality control of agricultural products, vegetable product








L_2015220EN.01000101.xml










21.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 220/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/1413
of 10 August 2015
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ogulinski kiseli kupus/Ogulinsko kiselo zelje (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia's application to register the name ‘Ogulinski kiseli kupus’/‘Ogulinsko kiselo zelje’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Ogulinski kiseli kupus’/‘Ogulinsko kiselo zelje’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Ogulinski kiseli kupus’/‘Ogulinsko kiselo zelje’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 August 2015.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 115, 10.4.2015, p. 20.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case C-438/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Taranto (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Davide Durante
Date: 2015-08-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, financial institution, financial solvency, game of chance, invitation to tender, service concession, tendering








C_2015381EN.01001301.xml










16.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Taranto (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Davide Durante
(Case C-438/15)
(2015/C 381/16)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Taranto

Party to the main proceedings

Davide Durante

Question referred

Must Articles 43, 49 and 56 et seq. TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation in the field of betting and gambling which, for the purposes of the launching of a fresh call for tenders for the award of licences as provided for by Article [10](9 g) of Law No 44 of 26 April 2012, regards as grounds for exclusion from the tendering procedure a tenderer’s failure to demonstrate economic and financial capacity, without providing, for the purpose of that demonstration, when references are supplied by one bank only, for appropriate criteria other than the stipulated requirement of two different references given by two different banking institutions?
Case T-452/15: Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Petrov and Others v European Parliament
Date: 2015-08-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Parliament, abuse of power, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, freedom of movement, public building, sanction (EU)








C_2015363EN.01003901.xml










3.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/39





Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Petrov and Others v European Parliament
(Case T-452/15)
(2015/C 363/48)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Andrei Petrov (St. Petersburg, Russia), Fedor Biryukov (Moscow, Russia), Alexander Sotnichenko (St. Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the ban on entering the premises of the European Parliament made by the President of the European Parliament against the applicants on 16 June 2015;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
The applicants claim that they were discriminated against solely because of their nationality and in contravention of the prohibition under Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since there appear to be no substantive grounds for the ban pronounced. Moreover, in the view of the applicants, their presence on the premises of the European Parliament did not pose a risk to security and could not adversely affect the Parliament’s functioning.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging misuse of power
The applicants claim that the actions of the President of the European Parliament were manifestly purely arbitrary and are diametrically opposed to the prohibition of discrimination in the Treaties.
Case C-436/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 August 2015 — Lietuvos Respublikos aplinkos ministerijos Aplinkos projektų valdymo agentūra v UAB ‘Alytaus regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras’
Date: 2015-08-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Alytus county, application of EU law, interpretation of the law, investment project, waste management








C_2015337EN.01001101.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 August 2015 — Lietuvos Respublikos aplinkos ministerijos Aplinkos projektų valdymo agentūra v UAB ‘Alytaus regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras’
(Case C-436/15)
(2015/C 337/13)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Lietuvos Respublikos aplinkos ministerijos Aplinkos projektų valdymo agentūra

Other parties: UAB ‘Alytaus regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras’, Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerija, UAB ‘Skirnuva’, UAB ‘Parama’, UAB ‘Alkesta’, UAB ‘Dzūkijos statyba’

Questions referred







1.


What constitutes a ‘multiannual programme’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 (1) on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests?










2.


Do projects such as No 2001/LT/16/P/PE/003: ‘Establishment of a waste management system for the Alytus Region’, which was granted support by Commission Decision No PH(2001)5367 of 13 December 2001 approving Measure 2001 LT 16 P PE 003, as amended by Commission Decision No PH/2002/9380 of 23 December 2002, correspond to the concept of a ‘multiannual programme’ set out in Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests?










3.


If the answer to the second question is ‘yes’: what point in time should be regarded as constituting the start of the limitation period for proceedings under Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests?






(1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.
Case T-455/15: Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Vitra Collections v OHIM — Consorzio Origini (Shape of a chair)
Date: 2015-08-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, furniture industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015320EN.01004801.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/48





Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Vitra Collections v OHIM — Consorzio Origini (Shape of a chair)
(Case T-455/15)
(2015/C 320/66)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Vitra Collections AG (Muttenz, Switzerland) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consorzio Origini (Florence, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community tridimensional mark (Shape of a chair) — Community trade mark No 182 451

Procedure before OHIM: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2015 in Case R 664/2011-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-454/15: Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Laboratorios Ern v OHIM — Werner (Dynamic Life)
Date: 2015-08-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food supplement, fruit juice, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015320EN.01004701.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/47





Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Laboratorios Ern v OHIM — Werner (Dynamic Life)
(Case T-454/15)
(2015/C 320/65)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Pérez Serres, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Matthias Werner (Neufahrn, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


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

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in white, red, orange, yellow, green and blue purple containing the word elements ‘Dynamic Life’ — Application for registration No 11 303 468

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2015 in Case R 441/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


revoke the contested decision and reject the CTM No 011303468 DYNAMIC LIFE & design in classes 5 and 32;










—


order OHIM and Mr. Matthias Werner, in case he decides to intervene, to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-461/15: Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of interlaced signs)
Date: 2015-08-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2015328EN.01003201.xml










5.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/32





Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of interlaced signs)
(Case T-461/15)
(2015/C 328/29)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Guccio Gucci SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guess? IP Holder LP (Los Angeles, United States)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark (Representation of interlaced signs) — Community trade mark No 5 538 012

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2015 in Case R 2049/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings;










—


order Guess? IP Holder L.P. to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before both the OHIM Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-435/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2015 — GROFA GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover
Date: 2015-08-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, classification, customs regulations, interpretation of the law, recording equipment, specification of tariff heading








C_2015363EN.01002201.xml










3.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2015 — GROFA GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover
(Case C-435/15)
(2015/C 363/28)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: GROFA GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Questions referred







1.








(a)


Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1249/2011 of 29 November 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (1) applicable by analogy to the products which are the subject of the main proceedings (GoPro HERO3 ‘Black Edition’, ‘Black Edition Surf’, and ‘Black Edition Motorsport’)?










(b)


If the answer to that question is in the affirmative:
Is Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1249/2011 valid?














2.


If the answer to question 1(a) or 1(b) is in the negative:






(a)


Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 876/2014 of 8 August 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (2) applicable by analogy to the products which are the subject of the main proceedings?










(b)


If the answer to that question is in the affirmative:
Is Implementation Regulation (EU) No 876/2014 valid?














3.


If the answer to question 1(a) or 1(b) is in the negative:
Are the Commission’s Explanatory Notes to subheadings 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 of the Combined Nomenclature (3) to be interpreted as meaning that a sequence of video recorded in separate files each having a duration of less than 30 minutes is a recording of ‘at least 30 minutes in a single sequence of video’ if, when the recording is played, the viewer cannot perceive the switch between different files?










4.


If the answer to question 1(a) or 1(b) is in the negative, and the answer to questions 2(a), 2(b) and 3 is in the affirmative:
Does the fact that video camera recorders which are able to record signals from external sources are not able to reproduce those signals on an external television receiver or an external monitor preclude their being classified under subparagraph 8525 80 99 CN?






(1)  2011 OJ L 319, p. 39.

(2)  2014 OJ L 240, p. 12.

(3)  2015 OJ C 76, p. 1.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-08-10
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2015262EN.01000101.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/1





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

(2015/C 262/01)

Last publication


OJ C 254, 3.8.2015


Past publications


OJ C 245, 27.7.2015


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

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu