do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-558/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Research Engineering & Manufacturing v OHIM — Nedschroef Holding (TRILOBULAR) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark TRILOBULAR — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-11-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, bolt and screw industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016007EN.01002602.xml










11.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/26





Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Research Engineering & Manufacturing v OHIM — Nedschroef Holding (TRILOBULAR)
(Case T-558/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark TRILOBULAR - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 007/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Research Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc. (Middletown, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, G. Hollingworth, Barristers, K. Gilbert and M. Gilbert, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Nedschroef Holding BV (Helmond, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2014 (Case R 442/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Nedschroef Holding BV and Research Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Research Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc., to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-11-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015384EN.01000201.xml










18.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 384/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

17 November 2015
(2015/C 384/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0670




JPY


Japanese yen


131,49




DKK


Danish krone


7,4613




GBP


Pound sterling


0,70170




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3243




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0806




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2370




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,031




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,64




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2475




RON


Romanian leu


4,4375




TRY


Turkish lira


3,0593




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4960




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4200




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2700




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6447




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5175




KRW


South Korean won


1 247,07




ZAR


South African rand


15,1915




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8045




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6065




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 646,25




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6861




PHP


Philippine peso


50,339




RUB


Russian rouble


69,8710




THB


Thai baht


38,365




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0684




MXN


Mexican peso


17,8880




INR


Indian rupee


70,4322






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2015-11-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, anti-dumping duty, glass fibre, import (EU), originating product








C_2015384EN.01000501.xml










18.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 384/5





Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2015/C 384/05)
1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 (1) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than 3 months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres


The People’s Republic of China
India
Indonesia
Malaysia
Taiwan
Thailand


Anti-dumping duty


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 204, 9.8.2011, p. 1), as extended to imports consigned from India and Indonesia by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1371/2013 whether declared as originating in India or Indonesia or not (OJ L 346, 20.12.2013, p. 20) and as extended to imports consigned from Malaysia by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 672/2012 whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ L 196, 24.7.2012, p. 1) and as extended to imports consigned from Taiwan and Thailand by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 21/2013 whether declared as originating in Taiwan or Thailand or not (OJ L 11, 16.1.2013, p. 1).


10.8.2016






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Case T-813/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Liu v OHIM — DSN Marketing (Case for a portable computer) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a case for a portable computer — Identical earlier designs — Ground for invalidity — Lack of novelty within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of earlier designs prior to the priority date — Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 6/2002)
Date: 2015-11-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, micro-computer, packaging product








C_2016007EN.01002801.xml










11.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/28





Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Liu v OHIM — DSN Marketing (Case for a portable computer)
(Case T-813/14) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a case for a portable computer - Identical earlier designs - Ground for invalidity - Lack of novelty within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Disclosure of earlier designs prior to the priority date - Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 6/2002))
(2016/C 007/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Min Liu (Guangzhou, China) (represented initially by R. Bailly, S. Zhang and Y. Zhang, and subsequently by Y. Zhang, 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: DSN Marketing Ltd (Crawley, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2014 (Case R 1864/2013-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between DSN Marketing Ltd and Mr Min Liu.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Min Liu to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
Case C-609/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Letrado de la Administración de Justicia del Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer Único de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 18 November 2015 — María Assumpció Martínez Roges v José Antonio García Sánchez
Date: 2015-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, consumer protection, legal profession, natural person, unfair terms of contract








C_2016038EN.01003601.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/36





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Letrado de la Administración de Justicia del Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer Único de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 18 November 2015 — María Assumpció Martínez Roges v José Antonio García Sánchez
(Case C-609/15)
(2016/C 038/49)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Letrado de la Administración de Justicia del Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer Único de Terrasa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: María Assumpció Martínez Roges

Defendant: José Antonio García Sánchez

Questions referred







1.


Are Articles 34 and 35 of Law 1/2000 incompatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(2) of Directive [93/13/EEC (1)] and Articles 6(1)(d), 11 and 12 of Directive 2005/29/EC (2) inasmuch as they preclude any examination ex officio of possible unfair terms or unfair commercial practices in contracts concluded between lawyers and natural persons who are acting for purposes which are outside their trade, business or profession?










2.


Are Articles 34 and 35 of Law 1/2000 incompatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(2) of, and [point 1(q) of the Annex to], Directive [93/13/EEC] inasmuch as they preclude the production of evidence for the purpose of resolving the dispute in the administrative procedure for recovery of unpaid fees?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

(2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
Case T-76/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Nu Air Compressors and Tools v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain compressors originating in China — Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid — Determination of the export price — Deduction of anti-dumping duties — Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment)
Date: 2015-11-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, customs drawback, export price, import (EU), machinery, originating product








C_2016007EN.01001502.xml










11.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/15





Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Nu Air Compressors and Tools v Commission
(Case T-76/12) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of certain compressors originating in China - Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid - Determination of the export price - Deduction of anti-dumping duties - Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment))
(2016/C 007/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nu Air Compressors and Tools SpA (Robassomero, Italy) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, K. Talabér-Ritz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decisions C(2011) 8824 final and C(2011) 8812 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China, and, in the event that the General Court should annul those decisions, for the maintenance in force of those decisions until the Commission has adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court in this case.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decisions C(2011) 8824 final and C(2011) 8812 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as that article does not grant Nu Air Compressors and Tools SpA a refund of the anti-dumping duties unduly paid beyond the amounts referred to therein;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
Case T-74/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Mecafer v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain compressors originating in China — Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid — Determination of the export price — Deduction of anti-dumping duties — Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment)
Date: 2015-11-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, customs drawback, export price, import (EU), machinery, originating product








C_2016007EN.01001501.xml










11.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/15





Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Mecafer v Commission
(Case T-74/12) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of certain compressors originating in China - Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid - Determination of the export price - Deduction of anti-dumping duties - Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment))
(2016/C 007/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mecafer (Valence, France) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, K. Talabér-Ritz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 8804 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China, and, in the event that the General Court should annul that decision, for the maintenance in force of the effects of that decision until the Commission has adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court in this case.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8804 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as that article does not grant Mecafer SA a refund of the anti-dumping duties unduly paid beyond the amounts referred to therein;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
Case T-106/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Synergy Hellas v Commission (Arbitration clause — Sixth and seventh framework programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Early termination of contracts — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Good faith — Non-contractual liability — Reclassification of the action — Coexisting applications for contractual and non-contractual liability — Early warning system (EWS) — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link)
Date: 2015-11-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, administrative responsibility, arbitration clause, damages, indemnification, principle of proportionality, termination of a contract








C_2016007EN.01001701.xml










11.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/17





Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Synergy Hellas v Commission
(Case T-106/13) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Sixth and seventh framework programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Early termination of contracts - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Good faith - Non-contractual liability - Reclassification of the action - Coexisting applications for contractual and non-contractual liability - Early warning system (EWS) - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Causal link))
(2016/C 007/23)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Angelopoulos and K. Damis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Sauka, and by L. Athanassiou and G. Gerapetritis, lawyers)

Re:

Applications for contractual and non-contractual liability made in the context of implementing several contracts which the Commission has concluded with the applicant under the sixth and seventh framework programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.
Case T-73/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Einhell Germany and Others v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain compressors originating in China — Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid — Determination of the export price — Deduction of anti-dumping duties — Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment)
Date: 2015-11-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, customs drawback, export price, import (EU), machinery, originating product








C_2016048EN.01004102.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/41





Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Einhell Germany and Others v Commission
(Case T-73/12) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of certain compressors originating in China - Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid - Determination of the export price - Deduction of anti-dumping duties - Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment))
(2016/C 048/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Einhell Germany AG (Landau an der Isar, Germany); Hans Einhell Nederlands BV (Breda, Netherlands); Einhell France SAS (Villepinte, France); Hans Einhell Österreich GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, K. Talabér-Ritz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decisions K(2011) 8831 final, C(2011) 8825 final, C(2011) 8828 final and K(2011) 8810 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China, and, in the event that the General Court should annul the contested decisions, for the maintenance in force of the effects of those decisions until the Commission has adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court in this case.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decisions K(2011) 8831 final, C(2011) 8825 final, C(2011) 8828 final and K(2011) 8810 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as that article does not grant Einhell Germany AG, Hans Einhell Nederlands BV, Einhell France SAS and Hans Einhell Österreich GmbH a refund of the anti-dumping duties unduly paid beyond the amounts referred to therein;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.
Case T-659/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP v OHIM — Bruichladdich Distillery (PORT CHARLOTTE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark PORT CHARLOTTE — Earlier designations of origin ‘porto’ and ‘port’ — Grounds for invalidity — Article 52(1)(a), Article 53(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(c) and (g) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 118m(2) of Regulation (EC) No 491/2009)
Date: 2015-11-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, spirits, trade-mark law








C_2016007EN.01002701.xml










11.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/27





Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP v OHIM — Bruichladdich Distillery (PORT CHARLOTTE)
(Case T-659/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark PORT CHARLOTTE - Earlier designations of origin ‘porto’ and ‘port’ - Grounds for invalidity - Article 52(1)(a), Article 53(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(c) and (g) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 118m(2) of Regulation (EC) No 491/2009))
(2016/C 007/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP (Peso de Régua, Portugal) (represented by: P. Sousa e Silva, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd (Argyll, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Harvard Duclos, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2014 (Case R 946/2013-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP and Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd.

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 8 July 2014 (Case R 946/2013-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP and Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;










4.


Orders Bruichladdich Distillery to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.