do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-778/15: Action brought on 28 December 2015 — It Works v OHIM — KESA Holdings Luxembourg (IT it WORKS)
Date: 2015-12-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, information technology industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016090EN.01002101.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/21





Action brought on 28 December 2015 — It Works v OHIM — KESA Holdings Luxembourg (IT it WORKS)
(Case T-778/15)
(2016/C 090/29)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: It Works S.A. (Krakow, Poland) (represented by: J. Aftyka, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: KESA Holdings Luxembourg Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘IT it WORKS’ — Application for registration No 10 359 222

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 October 2015 in Case R 2106/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision with respect to the services for which the opposition has been upheld;










—


annul the decision of the Opposition Division dated 17/06/2014 in opposition proceedings No B 001988727 with respect to the services for which the opposition has been upheld;










—


refer the case back to OHIM so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and register Community Trade Mark No 010359222 in respect of all the services covered, without prejudice to those which are uncontested;










—


charge the OHIM with the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, Board of Appeal and General Court.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-767/15: Action brought on 28 December 2015 — Labeyrie v OHIM — Delpeyrat (Representation of a sowing of light coloured fish on a dark background)
Date: 2015-12-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, fishery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016078EN.01002801.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/28





Action brought on 28 December 2015 — Labeyrie v OHIM — Delpeyrat (Representation of a sowing of light coloured fish on a dark background)
(Case T-767/15)
(2016/C 078/39)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Labeyrie (Saint-Geours-de-Maremne, France) (represented by: A. Lecomte, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delpeyrat (Saint Pierre du Mont, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark without any representation of colours (Representation of a sowing of light coloured fish on a dark background) — Community trade mark No 3 916 533

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for revocation

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 October 2015 in Case R 2694/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, in that it confirmed the decision of the Invalidity Division of OHIM revoking the rights of the company LABEYRIE over its Community mark No 3 916 533 to designate fish;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 1(1)(a) of that regulation, and of Rule 22 and Rule 40 of Regulation No 2868/95.
Case F-153/15: Action brought on 28 December 2015 — ZZ and Others v EEAS
Date: 2015-12-28
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, monthly pay, pay








C_2016111EN.01004402.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/44





Action brought on 28 December 2015 — ZZ and Others v EEAS
(Case F-153/15)
(2016/C 111/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the EEAS, in the applicants’ salary slips, in so far as it constitutes the first application of the reduction from 25 % to 20 % of the allowance for living conditions, applying a decision of the Chief Operating Officer.

Form of order sought







—


Declare the decision of 23 February 2015 of the Chief Operating Officer of the EEAS inapplicable to the applicants;










—


Consequently, annul their salary slips for March 2015 and those issued subsequently, in so far as they apply an ALC of 20 %;










—


Order the EEAS to pay the costs.
Case C-698/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 28 December 2015 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v David Davis, Tom Watson, Peter Brice, Geoffrey Lewis
Date: 2015-12-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, data protection, personal data, protection of privacy








C_2016098EN.01002102.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/21





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 28 December 2015 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v David Davis, Tom Watson, Peter Brice, Geoffrey Lewis
(Case C-698/15)
(2016/C 098/28)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendants: David Davis, Tom Watson, Peter Brice, Geoffrey Lewis

Questions referred







1.


Does the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238 (‘Digital Rights Ireland’) (including, in particular, paragraphs 60 to 62 thereof) lay down mandatory requirements of EU law applicable to a Member State's domestic regime governing access to data retained in accordance with national legislation, in order to comply with Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter (‘the EU Charter’)?










2.


Does the judgment of the Court of Justice in Digital Rights Ireland expand the scope of Articles 7 and/or 8 of the EU Charter beyond that of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’) as established in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’)?
Case T-766/15: Action brought on 28 December 2015 — Labeyrie v OHIM — Delpeyrat (Representation of a sowing of golden fish on a blue background)
Date: 2015-12-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, fish product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016078EN.01002701.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/27





Action brought on 28 December 2015 — Labeyrie v OHIM — Delpeyrat (Representation of a sowing of golden fish on a blue background)
(Case T-766/15)
(2016/C 078/38)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Labeyrie (Saint-Geours-de-Maremne, France) (represented by: A. Lecomte, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delpeyrat (Saint Pierre du Mont, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in colour (Representation of a sowing of golden fish on a blue background) — Community trade mark No 3 916 509

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for revocation

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 October 2015 in Case R 2693/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, in that it confirmed the decision of the Invalidity Division of OHIM revoking the rights of the company LABEYRIE over its Community mark No 3 916 509 to designate fish, smoked fish and smoked salmon;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 1(1)(a) of that regulation, and of Rule 22 and Rule 40 of Regulation No 2868/95.
Case T-797/14: Order of the General Court of 28 December 2015 — Skype v OHIM — Sky International (SKYPE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-12-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, telecommunications industry, trade-mark law








C_2016106EN.01003402.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/34





Order of the General Court of 28 December 2015 — Skype v OHIM — Sky International (SKYPE)
(Case T-797/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 106/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Skype Ultd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. Carboni and M. Browne, solicitors)

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 intervening before the General Court: Sky International AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Rose and J. Curry, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2014 (Case R 1075/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sky International AG and Skype.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Skype Ultd and Sky International AG are ordered to bear their own costs and to each pay half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM).






(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
Case C-697/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 28 December 2015 — MB srl v Società Metropolitana Acque Torino (SMAT)
Date: 2015-12-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, free movement of goods, freedom to provide services, mutual recognition principle, national law, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, works contract








C_2016106EN.01002401.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 28 December 2015 — MB srl v Società Metropolitana Acque Torino (SMAT)
(Case C-697/15)
(2016/C 106/25)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MB srl

Defendant: Società Metropolitana Acque Torino (SMAT)

Question referred

Do the Community principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, together with the principles of the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equality of treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency, referred to (most recently) in Directive 2014/24/EU, (1) preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation founded on the combined provisions of Articles 87(4) and 86(3a) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006 and Article 26(6) of Legislative Decree No 81 of 2008, as interpreted, with a view to securing proper respect for, and uniform application of, the law, pursuant to Article 99 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, by judgments No 3 and No 9 of 2015 of the Plenary Assembly of the Consiglio di Stato, according to which the failure to list the corporate safety and security costs separately in tenders in a procedure for the award of a public works contract inevitably results in the exclusion of the tendering undertaking concerned, even in the case where the obligation to list that information separately was not set out either in the tender rules or on the attached form to be completed for the submission of the tender, and even though, in substantive terms, the tender in question took into account the minimum costs of corporate safety and security?


(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
Case T-768/15: Action brought on 28 December 2015 — RP Technik v OHIM — Tecnomarmi (RP ROYAL PALLADIUM)
Date: 2015-12-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016078EN.01002901.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/29





Action brought on 28 December 2015 — RP Technik v OHIM — Tecnomarmi (RP ROYAL PALLADIUM)
(Case T-768/15)
(2016/C 078/40)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: RP Technik GmbH Profilsysteme (Bönen, Germany) (represented by: P. Henrichs, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tecnomarmi Snc (Treviso, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘RP ROYAL PALLADIUM’ — Community trade mark application No 11 358 496

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2014 in Case R 2061/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the intervener to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;










—


in the alternative, order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, if the intervener is not a party to the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


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