do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-264/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Hansen v OHIM (WIN365) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark WIN365 — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, game of chance, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2015414EN.01002902.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/29





Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Hansen v OHIM (WIN365)
(Case T-264/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark WIN365 - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 414/38)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Robert Hansen (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Pütz-Poulalion, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 February 2014 (Case R 908/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign WIN365 as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Robert Hansen to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7602 — Deutsche Telekom Group/MET Holding/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, energy industry, gas supply, holding company, merger control, natural gas, retail trade, telecommunications industry








C_2015351EN.01000102.xml










23.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7602 — Deutsche Telekom Group/MET Holding/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 351/02)
On 19 August 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 English 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 32015M7602. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Information concerning the signature of the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and Tunisia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Tunisia on the general principles for the participation of Tunisia in Union programmes (OJ L 104, 23.4.2015)
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU programme, European neighbourhood policy, Protocol (EU), Tunisia, Union for the Mediterranean, association agreement (EU), framework agreement








L_2015278EN.01002801.xml










23.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 278/28







Corrigendum to Information concerning the signature of the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and Tunisia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Tunisia on the general principles for the participation of Tunisia in Union programmes

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 104 of 23 April 2015
)


On page 1:
for:


                  ‘The above Protocol between the European Union and Tunisia was signed in Luxembourg on 14 April 2014.’,

read:


                  ‘The above Protocol between the European Union and Tunisia was signed in Brussels on 17 March 2015.’.
Case T-603/15: Action brought on 23 October 2015 –Frank v Commission
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, EU research policy, Framework Programme for Research and Development, award of contract, equal treatment, executive agency, invitation to tender, research and development, transparency in decision-making








C_2016048EN.01005201.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/52





Action brought on 23 October 2015 –Frank v Commission
(Case T-603/15)
(2016/C 048/60)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Regine Frank (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: W. Trautner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision notified by letter of 5 June 2015 by which the applicant’s application No 680151 — QUASIMODO in level 1 was negatively assessed and she was not admitted to level 2;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant contests the implicit negative decision of the Commission on the administrative complaint against the decision of ERCEA of 5 June 2015 to negatively assess the applicant’s application No 680151 — QUASIMODO in the context of the calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2016 under Horizon 2020 of the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) — ‘Horizon 2020’ and the decision not to admit the applicant to level 2.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of transparency
The applicant claims that ERCEA’s actions infringe the principle of transparency. The assessment bases were neither set out in the ‘Guidelines for Applicants’ nor consistently stated in the decision of 5 June 2015.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equality
In addition, it is claimed that, as a result of its undifferentiated assessment and attacks on the applicant’s economic reputation, the Commission also infringes the principle of equality.
Case T-96/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Vimeo v OHIM — PT Comunicações (VIMEO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark VIMEO — Earlier Community figurative mark meo — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No coexistence of the marks — Likelihood of confusion)
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, telecommunications industry, trade-mark law








C_2015414EN.01002702.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/27





Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Vimeo v OHIM — PT Comunicações (VIMEO)
(Case T-96/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark VIMEO - Earlier Community figurative mark meo - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No coexistence of the marks - Likelihood of confusion))
(2015/C 414/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Vimeo LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter and M. MacDonald, Solicitors)

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: PT Comunicações, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 November 2013 (Case R 1092/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between PT Comunicações, SA and Vimeo LLC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Vimeo LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Belgium, EU waters, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2015351EN.01000801.xml










23.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/8





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2015/C 351/07)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


19.9.2015




Duration


19.9-31.12.2015




Member State


Belgium




Stock or Group of stocks


NEP/8ABDE.




Species


Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus)




Zone


VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


51/TQ104






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case T-636/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Trekstor v OHIM — MSI Technology (MovieStation) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark MovieStation — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015414EN.01002601.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/26





Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Trekstor v OHIM — MSI Technology (MovieStation)
(Case T-636/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark MovieStation - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 414/33)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker and M. Alber, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: MSI Technology GmbH (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: T. Lieb, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2013 (Case R 1914/2012-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between TrekStor Ltd and MSI Technology GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders TrekStor 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);










3.


Orders MSI Technology GmbH to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.
Case T-605/15: Action brought on 23 October 2015 — Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others v Commission
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, energy policy, reimbursement of aid, renewable energy








C_2016027EN.01006301.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/63





Action brought on 23 October 2015 — Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others v Commission
(Case T-605/15)
(2016/C 027/80)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl (Düsseldorf, Germany), Benteler Steel/Tube GmbH (Paderborn, Germany), BGH Edelstahl Freital GmbH (Freital, Germany), BGH Edelstahl Lippendorf GmbH (Lippendorf, Germany), BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH (Siegen, Germany), Buderus Edelstahl GmbH (Wetzlar, Germany), ESF Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi GmbH (Riesa, Germany), Friedr. Lohmann GmbH Werk für Spezial- & Edelstähle (Witten, Germany), Outokumpu Nirosta GmbH (Krefeld, Germany), Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany), Zentralkokerei Saar GmbH (Dillingen), Drahtwerk St. Ingbert GmbH (Sankt Ingbert, Germany), Ilsenburger Grobblech GmbH (Ilsenburg, Germany), ThyssenKrupp Electrical Steel GmbH (Gelsenkirchen, Germany), ThyssenKrupp Federn und Stabilisatoren GmbH (Hagen, Germany), ThyssenKrupp Gerlach GmbH (Homburg, Germany), ThyssenKrupp Rasselstein GmbH (Andernach, Germany) und Emscher Aufbereitung GmbH (Mühlheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 (notified under document C(2014) 8786) on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users. (1)

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to the pleas relied on in Case T-319/15 Deutsche Edelstahlwerke v Commission. (2)



(1)  OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122.

(2)  OJ 2015 C 302, p. 60.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7745 — Fortum/Lietuvos Energija/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, energy industry, energy production, gas supply, heating, merger control








C_2015351EN.01002301.xml










23.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/23





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7745 — Fortum/Lietuvos Energija/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 351/11)






1.


On 16 October 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings UAB Fortum Heat Lietuva of Lithuania, controlled by Fortum Corporation of Finland (‘Fortum’) and Lietuvos Energija UAB of Lithuania (‘LE’) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of UAB Kauno Kogeneracine Jegaine of Lithuania (‘JV’) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Fortum: the generation and sale of electricity and heat, as well as related services, in the Nordic Countries and other areas of the Baltic region.
—   for LE: the generation and supply of power and heat as well as the trade and distribution of electricity and gas in Lithuania and in the Baltic region.
—   for JV: the generation and supply of electricity and heat on the Kaunas district heating network in Lithuania.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7745 — Fortum/Lietuvos Energija/JV, 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’).
Case T-649/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Trekstor v OHIM (SmartTV Station) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark SmartTV Station — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic device, registered trade mark, television equipment, trade-mark law








C_2015414EN.01002701.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/27





Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Trekstor v OHIM (SmartTV Station)
(Case T-649/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark SmartTV Station - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 414/34)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker and M. Alber, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially M. Fischer, then G. Schneider and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2013 (Case R 128/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign SmartTV Station as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders TrekStor 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).






(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Belgium, EU waters, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2015351EN.01000802.xml










23.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/8





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2015/C 351/08)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


19.9.2015




Duration


19.9-31.12.2015




Member State


Belgium




Stock or Group of stocks


LEZ/8ABDE.




Species


Megrims (Lepidorhombus spp.)




Zone


VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


50/TQ104






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case T-714/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — David Bonney v OHIM — Bruno (ATHEIST) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ATHEIST — Earlier national word mark athé — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015414EN.01003101.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/31





Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — David Bonney v OHIM — Bruno (ATHEIST)
(Case T-714/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ATHEIST - Earlier national word mark athé - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 414/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: David Bonney (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially by L. Rampini, and subsequently by D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vanessa Bruno (Paris, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2015 (Case R 803/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ms Vanessa Bruno and Mr David Bonney.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr David Bonney to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).






(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7809 — Grosvenor/PSPIB/Real estate asset in Milan) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2015351EN.01000101.xml










23.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7809 — Grosvenor/PSPIB/Real estate asset in Milan)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 351/01)
On 19 October 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 English 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 32015M7809. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-597/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Calida v OHIM — Quanzhou Green Garments (dadida) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark dadida — Earlier Community word mark CALIDA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015414EN.01002502.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/25





Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Calida v OHIM — Quanzhou Green Garments (dadida)
(Case T-597/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark dadida - Earlier Community word mark CALIDA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 414/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Calida Holding AG (Sursee, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kaase and H. Dirksmeier, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Quanzhou Green Garments Co. Ltd (Quanzhou, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2013 (Case R 1190/2012-4), relating to cancellation proceedings between Calida Holding AG and Quanzhou Green Garments Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Calida Holding AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.