do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-450/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT VODKA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark WISENT VODKA — Earlier national three-dimensional mark ŹUBRÓWKA — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the marks — Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-11-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, spirits, trade-mark law








C_2016007EN.01002101.xml










11.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/21





Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT VODKA)
(Case T-450/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark WISENT VODKA - Earlier national three-dimensional mark ŹUBRÓWKA - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the marks - Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 007/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, J. Mrozowski and G. Rząsa, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut SA (Łańcut, Poland) (represented by: A. Gorzkiewicz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 June 2013 (Case R 1734/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Przedsiębiorstwo Polmos Białystok and Fabryka Wodek Polmos Łańcut SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 10 June 2013 (Case R 1734/2011-4);










2.


Orders OHIM and Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut SA to bear their own costs and to pay those of CEDC International sp. z o.o.






(1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.
Case C-585/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 12 November 2015 — Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA v État belge
Date: 2015-11-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common organisation of markets, export (EU), export refund, sugar








C_2016038EN.01003101.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/31





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 12 November 2015 — Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA v État belge
(Case C-585/15)
(2016/C 038/44)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA

Defendant: État belge

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 33(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of 13 September 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1) to be interpreted — particularly in the light of the judgment of 27 September 2012 in Zuckerfabrik Jülich (C-113/10, C-147/10 and C-234/10) — as meaning that for the purpose of calculating the average loss, it is necessary to divide, for all categories of sugar exported, the total amount of the actual expenditure by the total amount of the quantities exported, regardless of whether refunds have actually been paid for those quantities or not?










2.


Is Article 33(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of 13 September 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector to be interpreted — particularly in the light of the judgment of 27 September 2012 in Zuckerfabrik Jülich (C-113/10, C-147/10 and C-234/10) — as meaning that the carry forward to be taken into account (as a debit or credit item) in the overall calculation of the production levies is to be calculated, for all categories of sugar exported, by dividing the total amount of the actual expenditure by the total amount of the quantities actually exported, regardless of whether or not export refunds have actually been paid for those quantities?










3.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, are Regulation No 2267/2000 (2) and Regulation No 1993/2001 (3) invalid?






(1)  OJ 1999 L 252, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2267/2000 of 12 October 2000 fixing the production levies and the coefficient for calculating the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 1999/2000 marketing year (OJ 2000 L 259, p. 29).

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1993/2001 of 11 October 2001 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2000/01 marketing year (OJ 2001 L 271, p. 15).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7573 — DMK/DOC Kaas) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: dairy industry, economic concentration, merger control, milk product








C_2015375EN.01000801.xml










12.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 375/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7573 — DMK/DOC Kaas)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 375/07)






1.


On 5 November 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 undertaking DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH (‘DMK’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of DOC Kaas BV (‘DOC Kaas’, the Netherlands) by way of conclusion of a swap and purchase agreement.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   DMK: develops, produces and distributes a broad range of dairy products including basic milk products, cheese, whey-based products, baby food, ice cream, health products and dairy ingredients for food manufacturing,
—   DOC Kaas: develops, produces and distributes Dutch-type cheese and other types of hard and semi-hard cheese. To a smaller extent, DOC Group also produces and distributes cream and whey-based products.










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.7573 — DMK/DOC Kaas, 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-672/15: Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Malta Cross Foundation International v OHIM — Malteser Hilfsdienst (Malta Cross International Foundation)
Date: 2015-11-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, donation, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, voluntary organisation








C_2016027EN.01007301.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/73





Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Malta Cross Foundation International v OHIM — Malteser Hilfsdienst (Malta Cross International Foundation)
(Case T-672/15)
(2016/C 027/92)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Malta Cross Foundation International, Inc. (Hallandale Beach, United States) (represented by: J. Pimenta, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Malteser Hilfsdienst e.V. (Cologne, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Malta Cross International Foundation’ — Application for registration No 7 252 554

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2015 in Case R 863/2011-G

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM and, if the case might be, the intervener to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and of the appeal.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7585 — NXP Semiconductors/Freescale Semiconductor) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical engineering, electronic component, merger control, sale








C_2015375EN.01000102.xml










12.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 375/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7585 — NXP Semiconductors/Freescale Semiconductor)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 375/02)
On 17 September 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32015M7585. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-11-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015375EN.01000301.xml










12.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 375/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

11 November 2015
(2015/C 375/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0716




JPY


Japanese yen


131,90




DKK


Danish krone


7,4604




GBP


Pound sterling


0,70600




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3290




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0783




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2230




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,022




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,70




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2215




RON


Romanian leu


4,4366




TRY


Turkish lira


3,0929




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5183




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4213




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3060




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6344




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5236




KRW


South Korean won


1 238,51




ZAR


South African rand


15,2006




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8235




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6205




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 551,32




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6634




PHP


Philippine peso


50,475




RUB


Russian rouble


69,0860




THB


Thai baht


38,446




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0013




MXN


Mexican peso


17,9011




INR


Indian rupee


70,9780






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-121/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2015 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility — Projects of common interest which relate to the territory of a Member State — Approval of that State — Extension of a rail freight corridor — Legal basis — Article 171 TFEU and second paragraph of Article 172 TFEU)
Date: 2015-11-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, common transport policy, rail network, trans-European network, transport network








C_2016016EN.01000701.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/7





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2015 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
(Case C-121/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility - Projects of common interest which relate to the territory of a Member State - Approval of that State - Extension of a rail freight corridor - Legal basis - Article 171 TFEU and second paragraph of Article 172 TFEU))
(2016/C 016/07)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt and L. Christie, acting as Agents, and by D.J. Rhee, Barrister)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and M. Sammut, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: Z. Kupčová and E. Chatziioakeimidou, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
Case F-105/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 November 2015 — FM and FO v CEPOL
Date: 2015-11-12
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, damages, indemnification, rights of civil servants, termination of employment








C_2015429EN.01003101.xml










21.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 429/31





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 November 2015 — FM and FO v CEPOL
(Case F-105/15) (1)

(2015/C 429/44)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 320, 28/9/2015, p. 53.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7817 — OBI/bauMax Standort Steyr) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hand tool, household article, ironmongery, merger control, retail trade








C_2015375EN.01000701.xml










12.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 375/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7817 — OBI/bauMax Standort Steyr)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 375/06)






1.


On 4 November 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 undertaking OBI Group Holding SE & Co. KGaA (‘OBI’, Germany) and its affiliated undertakings, belonging to the Tengelmann group (Germany), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control bauMax Steyr, one retail store belonging to bauMax AG (Austria), by way of purchase of assets and other means.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for OBI: operation of do-it-yourself retail stores and operation of a franchise system for do-it-yourself retail stores in several countries in Europe and in Russia,
—   for bauMax Steyr: operation of one do-it-yourself retail store.










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.7817 — OBI/bauMax Standort Steyr, 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 C-588/15 P: Appeal brought on 12 November 2015 by LG Electronics, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-91/13: LG Electronics, Inc. v European Commission
Date: 2015-11-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Economic Area, administrative procedure, cartel, direct selling, electronic component, equal treatment, fine, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, principle of proportionality








C_2016016EN.01002301.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/23





Appeal brought on 12 November 2015 by LG Electronics, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-91/13: LG Electronics, Inc. v European Commission
(Case C-588/15 P)
(2016/C 016/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: LG Electronics, Inc. (represented by: G. van Gerven, T. Franchoo, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the Judgment under appeal;










—


annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1.1(d) and 1.2(g), Articles 2.l(d) and 2.1(e), and Articles 2.2(d) and 2.2(e) of the Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 of 5 December 2012, insofar as they concern the Appellant; and/or










—


reduce the fines imposed on the Appellant in Articles 2.1 (d) & (e) and Articles 2.2(d) & (e);










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Applicant raises four pleas in law.

First Plea: the General Court violated the Appellant's rights of defence in so far as it upheld the Commission's Decision to keep LPD outside the administrative proceedings as a defendant and, in particular, not to address the statement of objections to LPD. In rejecting LGE's plea, the General Court violated also the principle of proportionality in defining LGE's duty of care.

Second Plea: the General Court violated Article 101 TFEU and Article 23.2 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) in so far as it held that the Commission was entitled to base LGE's fine on Direct EEA Sales through Transformed Products made by LGE and Philips, which are undertakings different from LPD.

Third Plea: in the alternative, the General Court violated Article 101 TFEU, Article 23 .2 of Regulation No 1/2003 and the principle of personal liability in so far as it held that the Commission was entitled to base LGE's fine on Direct EEA Sales through Transformed Products made by Philips.

Fourth Plea: the General Court violated the principle of equal treatment in so far as it ruled that the Commission was entitled to apply the methodology of Direct EEA Sales through Transformed Products to LGE, but not to Samsung SDI.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty OJ L 1, p. 1.
Case T-544/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Société des produits Nestlé v OHIM — Terapia (ALETE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ALETE — Earlier national word mark ALETA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
Date: 2015-11-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016007EN.01002601.xml










11.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/26





Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Société des produits Nestlé v OHIM — Terapia (ALETE)
(Case T-544/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ALETE - Earlier national word mark ALETA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
(2016/C 007/35)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and S. Cobet-Nüse, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Terapia SA (Cluj Napoca, Romania)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1128/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Terapia SA and Société des produits Nestlé SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1128/2013-4);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Société des produits Nestlé.






(1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.
Case T-629/15: Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Hako v OHIM (SCRUBMASTER)
Date: 2015-11-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cleaning industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016016EN.01004701.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/47





Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Hako v OHIM (SCRUBMASTER)
(Case T-629/15)
(2016/C 016/56)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hako GmbH (Bad Oldesloe, Germany) (represented by: A. Marx, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SCRUBMASTER’ — Application No 12 492 617

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2015 in Case R 2197/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.