do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-5/16: Action brought on 4 January 2016 — Gregis v EUIPO — DM9 Automobili (ATS)
Date: 2016-01-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2016243EN.01003302.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/33





Action brought on 4 January 2016 — Gregis v EUIPO — DM9 Automobili (ATS)
(Case T-5/16)
(2016/C 243/36)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Gian Luca Gregis (Adeje, Spain) (represented by: M. Bartolucci, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DM9 Automobili Srl (Borgomanero, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘ATS’ — Community trade mark No 9 799 719

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings relating to the registration of a transfer

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 October 2015 in Case R 588/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


cancel Transfer T8391925 of 14 April 2014.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 17 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Rule 31 of Regulation No 2868/95;










—


Infringement of Rule 84(3)(b) of Regulation No 2868/95.
Case T-2/16: Action brought on 4 January 2016 — K&K Group v OHIM — Pret a Manger (Europe) (Pret A Diner)
Date: 2016-01-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016078EN.01003301.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/33





Action brought on 4 January 2016 — K&K Group v OHIM — Pret a Manger (Europe) (Pret A Diner)
(Case T-2/16)
(2016/C 078/45)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: K&K Group AG (Cham, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pret a Manger (Europe) Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Pret A Diner’ — International registration No 1 113 460

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings.

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 October 2015 in Case R 2825/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(5), 15(1), 42(2) and 42(3) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Rule 22 of Regulation No 2868/95.
Case C-3/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 4 January 2016 — Lucio Cesare Aquino v Belgische Staat
Date: 2016-01-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, higher court, judicial proceedings, liability of the State, preliminary ruling procedure








C_2016136EN.01000702.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 4 January 2016 — Lucio Cesare Aquino v Belgische Staat
(Case C-3/16)
(2016/C 136/12)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Lucio Cesare Aquino

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Questions referred







1.


In the light of the application of the case-law developed by the Court of Justice in the Köbler case (judgment of 30 September 2003, Case C-224/01) (1), and the Traghetti del Mediterraneo case (judgment of 13 June 2006, Case C-173/03) (2) on State liability for wrongdoing by courts which constitutes a breach of EU law, should a court whose decision in the context of an appeal in cassation is not assessed because, by application of a national procedural rule, the complainant, who made a submission in the cassation proceedings, is irrefutably deemed to have withdrawn from proceedings, be regarded as a court of last instance?










2.


Is it compatible with the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, partly in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3), read together, that a national court, which under that Treaty provision is obliged to make requests for preliminary rulings to the Court of Justice, rejects a request for such a ruling on the sole ground that the request is formulated in a pleading which, according to the applicable procedural law, should not be taken into account because it was filed late?










3.


In a case where the highest of the ordinary courts does not examine a request for a preliminary ruling, should it be assumed that a breach of the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU has been committed, partly in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read together, when that court rejects the request, with the only reason given being that ‘[s]ince the grounds of appeal were not admissible for a reason specific to the proceedings before the Hof’, the question would not be asked?






(1)  EU:C:2003:513.

(2)  EU:C:2006:391.

(3)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.
Case C-2/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 4 January 2016 — Criminal proceedings against J. S. R.
Date: 2016-01-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal procedure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, terrorism








C_2016118EN.01000802.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 4 January 2016 — Criminal proceedings against J. S. R.
(Case C-2/16)
(2016/C 118/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Stuttgart

Party to the main proceedings

J. S. R.

Question referred

Is the inclusion of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (‘the LTTE’) in the list pursuant to Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (1) for the period of time from 23 July 2007 to 11 March 2009, in particular on the basis of Council Decisions of






—


29 March 2006 (2006/379/EC), (2)











—


28 June 2007 (2007/445/EC), (3)











—


20 December 2007 (2007/868/EC in the version of the correction from the same day published in the Official Journal of the European Union L 340 of 22 December 2007), (4)











—


15 July 2008 (2008/583/EC) (5) and










—


26 January 2009 (2009/62/EC) (6)

invalid?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70.

(2)  Council Decision of 29 May 2006 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2005/930/EC (OJ 2006 L 144, p. 21).

(3)  Council Decision of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC (OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58).

(4)  Council Decision of 20 December 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/445/EC (OJ 2007 L 340, p. 100), as corrected.

(5)  Council Decision of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC (OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21).

(6)  Council Decision of 26 January 2009 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2008/583/EC (OJ 2009 L 23, p. 25).
Case T-3/16: Action brought on 4 January 2016 — Allstate Insurance v OHIM (DRIVEWISE)
Date: 2016-01-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2016078EN.01003401.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/34





Action brought on 4 January 2016 — Allstate Insurance v OHIM (DRIVEWISE)
(Case T-3/16)
(2016/C 078/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Allstate Insurance Company (Northfield, United States) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, 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 ‘DRIVEWISE’ — Application for registration No 13 455 019

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2015 in Case R 956/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 8 October 2015 in Case R 956/2015-2 concerning Community Trademark Application No. 013 455 019 ‘DRIVEWISE’;










—


order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation No. 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No. 207/2009.
Case C-4/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 4 January 2016 — J.D. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki
Date: 2016-01-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: energy resources, hydraulic energy, industrial waste, power plant, renewable energy, wastewater








C_2016111EN.01000701.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 4 January 2016 — J.D. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki
(Case C-4/16)
(2016/C 111/09)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: J.D.

Respondent: Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

Question referred

Is the term ‘hydropower’ as a renewable energy source, set out in Article 2(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, (1) in conjunction with Article 5(3) thereof and recital 30 in the preamble thereto, to be interpreted as relating only to energy produced by a hydroelectric power station using the downward flow of inland surface waters, including rivers, or as relating also to energy produced in a hydroelectric power station (which is not a pure pumped-storage or mixed-power station) sited at the point of discharge of industrial waste water from another plant?


(1)  OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16.