do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-528/14: Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Information Resources v OHIM (Growth Delivered) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Growth Delivered — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-12-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, information analysis, market research, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016027EN.01004802.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/48





Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Information Resources v OHIM (Growth Delivered)
(Case T-528/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Growth Delivered - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 027/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Information Resources, Inc. (Chicago, Illinois, United States) (represented by: C. Schulte, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 May 2014 (Case R 1777/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Growth Delivered as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Information Resources, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Imposition of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, Lesser Antilles, air transport, inland transport, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2015400EN.01000501.xml










2.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 400/5





Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Imposition of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 400/05)






Member State


France




Route concerned


La Désirade, les Saintes and Marie-Galante on the one hand and Point-à-Pitre on the other




Date of entry into force of the public service obligation


The day following the date of publication of this notice




Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained



Arrêté du 15 octobre 2015 relatif à l’imposition d’obligations de service public sur les services aériens réguliers entre la Désirade, les Saintes, et Marie-Galante d’une part et Point-à-Pitre, d’autre part

(Order of 15 October 2015 imposing public service obligations on scheduled air services between la Désirade, les Saintes and Marie-Galante on the one hand and Point-à-Pitre on the other)
NOR: DEVA1522647A
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do
For further information please contact:





Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile




DTA/SDT/T2




50 rue Henry Farman




75 720 Paris Cedex 15




FRANCE




Tel. +33 158094321




Email: osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr
Case T-529/14: Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — adp Gauselmann v OHIM (Multi Win) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Multi Win — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-12-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, game of chance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016027EN.01004901.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/49





Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — adp Gauselmann v OHIM (Multi Win)
(Case T-529/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Multi Win - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 027/61)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Lübbecke, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann and S. Hanne, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2014 (Case R 1326/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Multi Win as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders adp Gauselmann GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Case C-641/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 2 December 2015 — Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk GmbH v Hettegger Hotel Edelweiss GmbH
Date: 2015-12-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: broadcasting, copyright, hotel industry, television, television equipment








C_2016090EN.01000501.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 2 December 2015 — Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk GmbH v Hettegger Hotel Edelweiss GmbH
(Case C-641/15)
(2016/C 090/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk GmbH

Defendant: Hettegger Hotel Edelweiss GmbH

Question referred

Is the condition of ‘against [payment] of an entrance fee’ laid down in Article 8(3) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (1) satisfied where;






—


through the TV set made available in each room of a hotel, the hotel operator provides access to the signal for various television and radio channels (‘hotel room TV’), and










—


for use of the room (including hotel room TV), the hotel operator charges a fee per room per night (room rate) which also includes use of the TV set and the television and radio channels to which access is thereby provided?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 28.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7828 — Ineos / DEA UK E&P Holdings) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, gas industry, holding company, merger control, oil industry, petrochemicals, wholesale trade








C_2015400EN.01000101.xml










2.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 400/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7828 — Ineos / DEA UK E&P Holdings)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 400/01)
On 26 November 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 32015M7828. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-414/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO ESTATE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark KENZO ESTATE — Earlier Community word mark KENZO — Relative ground for refusal — Reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-12-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2016027EN.01003401.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/34





Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO ESTATE)
(Case T-414/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark KENZO ESTATE - Earlier Community word mark KENZO - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 027/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, W. von der Osten-Sacken and M. Ring, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Kenzo (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 May 2013 (Case R 333/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Kenzo and Mr K. Tsujimoto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.
Case T-705/15: Action brought on 2 December 2015 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
Date: 2015-12-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: common foreign and security policy, damages, economic sanctions, goodwill, indemnification, international sanctions, trade restriction








C_2016059EN.01003001.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/30





Action brought on 2 December 2015 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
(Case T-705/15)
(2016/C 059/32)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


as a consequence, order the European Union to repair all of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;










—


order an expert to be appointed in order to establish the total extent of the harm suffered by the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging, first, the non-material harm caused by harm to its reputation, and, second, the material harm caused by the breakdown of its contractual relationships, by the loss of equipment and by the loss of revenue, which the applicant has suffered as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union, for which the Council is liable.
Notice concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council, regarding the protection of classified information exchanged in the interests of the European Union
Date: 2015-12-02
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: State secret, access to EU information, data protection, exchange of information








L_2015316EN.01000101.xml










2.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 316/1







Notice concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council, regarding the protection of classified information exchanged in the interests of the European Union

The Agreement between the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council, regarding the protection of classified information exchanged in the interests of the European Union will enter into force on 1 December 2015, the procedure provided for in Article 13(1) of the Agreement having been completed on 6 October 2015.
Case T-528/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Kenzo v OHIM — Tsujimoto (KENZO ESTATE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark KENZO ESTATE — Earlier Community word mark KENZO — Relative ground for refusal — Reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Partial rejection of the opposition)
Date: 2015-12-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016027EN.01004001.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/40





Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Kenzo v OHIM — Tsujimoto (KENZO ESTATE)
(Case T-528/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark KENZO ESTATE - Earlier Community word mark KENZO - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Partial rejection of the opposition))
(2016/C 027/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Kenzo (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, W. von der Osten-Sacken and M. Ring, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 July 2013 (Case R 1363/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Kenzo and Mr K. Tsujimoto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 July 2013 (Case R 1363/2012-2) in so far as it rejected the opposition in respect of the goods in Classes 29 to 31 covered by the international registration applied for;










2.


Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Kenzo in the course of the present proceedings;










3.


Orders OHIM and Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto to bear the costs which each of them has respectively incurred in the course of the present proceedings;










4.


Orders Mr K. Tsujimoto to bear his costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Kenzo for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.






(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
Case T-41/15: Order of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Novartis v OHIM– Mabxience (HERTIXAN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of application for registration — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-12-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016038EN.01005801.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/58





Order of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Novartis v OHIM– Mabxience (HERTIXAN)
(Case T-41/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of application for registration - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 038/77)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mabxience SA (Montevideo, Uruguay)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2014 (Case R 2550/2013-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis AG and Mabxience SA.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Novartis AG is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.
Case T-553/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Joint undertaking Fusion for Energy (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply of IT services, consulting, software development, Internet and support — Rejection of the tender of one tenderer and award of the contracts to other tenderers — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2015-12-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Joint Undertaking, Internet, award of contract, damages, information technology, nuclear research, research and development, services contract, software, tendering








C_2016027EN.01004102.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/41





Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Joint undertaking Fusion for Energy
(Case T-553/13) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of IT services, consulting, software development, Internet and support - Rejection of the tender of one tenderer and award of the contracts to other tenderers - Non-contractual liability))
(2016/C 027/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: D. Mabger and I. Ampazis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (represented: initially by H. Jahreiss, R. Hanak, A. Verpont, I. Costin and A. Nagy, and subsequently by R. Hanak, A. Verpont, I. Costin and A. Nagy, acting as Agents, and by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

Re:

Application for (i) annulment of the decision of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy of 7 August 2013 taken in the context of the tendering procedure F4E-ADM-0464 concerning IT services, consulting, software development, Internet and support services (OJ 2012/S 213-352451) rejecting the tender submitted by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and awarding the contracts to other tenderers, and (ii) an award of damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
Case T-706/15: Action brought on 2 December 2015 — Makhlouf v Council
Date: 2015-12-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, goodwill, international sanctions, ownership








C_2016038EN.01007301.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/73





Action brought on 2 December 2015 — Makhlouf v Council
(Case T-706/15)
(2016/C 038/98)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


as a consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation for all the damage suffered by the applicant in an amount to be determined by the Court on an equitable basis;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, claiming that he has suffered damage for which the Council of the European Union is liable. The plea in law relied on is divided into three parts.






—


First part, alleging that the measures taken by the Council are unlawful in that, first, the restrictive measures are unjustified and disproportionate and, secondly, they infringe the applicant’s rights to good administration and reputation, and his right to property.










—


Second part, claiming that the applicant has suffered non-material damage because of his inclusion on the list of persons and entities covered by the sanctions against Syria.










—


Third part, claiming strict liability on the part of the European Union in so far as the measures adopted against the applicant abnormally restrict his fundamental rights.
Case T-714/15: Action brought on 2 December 2015 — Makhlouf v Council
Date: 2015-12-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: common foreign and security policy, damages, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, indemnification, international sanctions, trade restriction








C_2016059EN.01003401.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/34





Action brought on 2 December 2015 — Makhlouf v Council
(Case T-714/15)
(2016/C 059/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


as a consequence, order the European Union to repair all of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging the fact that he has suffered non-material damage, consisting of harm to his reputation, as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union, for which the Council is liable.