do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-679/15: Action brought on 23 November 2015 — Novartis v OHIM (Representation of a crescent in green and white)
Date: 2015-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016090EN.01002001.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/20





Action brought on 23 November 2015 — Novartis v OHIM (Representation of a crescent in green and white)
(Case T-679/15)
(2016/C 090/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Zintler, 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 figurative mark (Representation of a crescent in green and white) — Application for registration No 13 189 139

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2015 in Case R 78/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare that Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 does not preclude the sign at issue (Community trade mark No 13 189 139) in respect of the goods in Class 5 described in the application for registration;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Plea(s) in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-624/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Litdana UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
Date: 2015-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, goods and services, invoicing, supply, tax exemption, tax inspection, work of art








C_2016048EN.01001901.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Litdana UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
(Case C-624/15)
(2016/C 048/26)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Litdana UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Questions referred







1.


Under Articles 314(a) and 226(11) of Directive 2006/112 (1) and under Articles 314(d) and 226(14) of that directive, are national rules and/or national practice founded on those rules allowed that prevent a taxable person from applying the VAT margin scheme because it becomes apparent upon a tax inspection carried out by the tax authority that incorrect information/data on the application of the VAT margin scheme and/or on exemption from VAT was provided in the VAT invoices for the goods supplied, but the taxable person did not know and could not have known about that?










2.


Is Article 314 of Directive 2006/112 to be understood and interpreted as meaning that, although the VAT invoice states that the goods are exempt from VAT (Article 226(11) of Directive 2006/112) and/or the seller has applied the margin scheme in order to supply the goods (Article 226(14) of Directive 2006/112), the taxable person acquires the right to apply the VAT margin scheme only when the supplier of the goods actually applies the margin scheme and duly discharges his obligations in the sphere of payment of VAT (pays VAT on the margin in his State)?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).