do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-43/16 P: Appeal brought on 21 January 2016 by Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-186/12: Copernicus-Trademarks v EUIPO
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, lighting equipment, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016326EN.01000801.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/8





Appeal brought on 21 January 2016 by Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-186/12: Copernicus-Trademarks v EUIPO
(Case C-43/16 P)
(2016/C 326/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (represented by: C. Röhl, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
By order of 14 June 2016 the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case T-62/14: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — BR IP Holder v OHIM — Greyleg Investments (HOKEY POKEY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark HOKEY POKEY — Unregistered earlier national word mark — Proof of use — Right to prohibit use of the mark sought — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right of a Member State — Obligation to state reasons — Raised by the Court of its own motion)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016090EN.01001501.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/15





Order of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — BR IP Holder v OHIM — Greyleg Investments (HOKEY POKEY)
(Case T-62/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark HOKEY POKEY - Unregistered earlier national word mark - Proof of use - Right to prohibit use of the mark sought - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right of a Member State - Obligation to state reasons - Raised by the Court of its own motion))
(2016/C 090/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: BR IP Holder LLC (Canton, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: F. Traub, lawyer and C. Rohsler, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Greyleg Investments Ltd (Baltonsborough, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2013 (Case R 1091/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between BR IP Holder LLC and Greyleg Investments Ltd.

Operative part of the order







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 22 November 2013 (Case R 1091/2012-4).










2.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by BR IP Holder LLC.






(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.
Case C-335/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Les Jardins de Jouvence SCRL v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value Added Tax — Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13A(1)(g) — Exemption for the supply of services closely linked to welfare and social security work, provided by bodies governed by public law or by other organisations recognised as charitable — ‘Supply of services and of goods closely linked to welfare and social security work’ — Organisations recognised as charitable — Serviced residence)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, provision of services, social assistance, social facilities, tax exemption








C_2016098EN.01000701.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/7





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Les Jardins de Jouvence SCRL v État belge
(Case C-335/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value Added Tax - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13A(1)(g) - Exemption for the supply of services closely linked to welfare and social security work, provided by bodies governed by public law or by other organisations recognised as charitable - ‘Supply of services and of goods closely linked to welfare and social security work’ - Organisations recognised as charitable - Serviced residence))
(2016/C 098/08)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Les Jardins de Jouvence SCRL

Defendant: État belge

Intervening party: AXA Belgium SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13A(1)(g) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that, among the services provided by a serviced residence, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whose charitable nature must be assessed by the referring court in the light of, in particular, the factors mentioned in the present judgment, those consisting of the provision of dwellings adapted for elderly persons may benefit from the exemption referred to in that provision. The other services provided by that serviced residence may also benefit from that exemption, provided in particular that the services which serviced residences are obliged to offer pursuant to the relevant national legislation are intended to achieve the support and care of elderly persons and correspond to the services which old people’s homes are also obliged to offer in accordance with national legislation.
It is irrelevant in this respect whether or not the operator of a serviced residence such as that at issue in the main proceedings receives a subsidy or any other form of advantage or financial support from public authorities.


(1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.
Case T-24/16: Action brought on 21 January 2016 — Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods v OHIM — Mueloliva (FONTOLIVA)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, olive oil, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016106EN.01003801.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/38





Action brought on 21 January 2016 — Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods v OHIM — Mueloliva (FONTOLIVA)
(Case T-24/16)
(2016/C 106/44)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: D. Martins Pereira, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mueloliva, SL (Cordoba, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘FONTOLIVA’ — International registration No 1 107 792 designating the European Union

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 November 2015 in Case R 1813/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


admit this action;










—


dismiss the contested decision in its entirety;










—


rectify the contested decision, based on the grounds in this action and declare the granting of protection to International Trademark No 1 107 792 FONTOLIVA in respect of the European Union;










—


condemn OHIM in the incurred expenses by the applicant, including the expenses made in the case which run with OHIM;










—


condemn the other party in the case to bear the applicant’s costs in the OHIM proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Lapse of earlier Spanish trademark No 780 071 FUENOLIVA;










—


Insufficiency of the evidence of genuine use of earlier trademark;










—


Inexistence of likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) CTMR;










—


Existence of two earlier trademarks FONTOLIVA in Spain.
Case C-281/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio (SACBO) SpA v European Commission, Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) (Appeal — Trans-European Transport Network — Financial aid — Closure — Decision declaring certain costs to be ineligible and establishing the final account — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Locus standi — Person other than the beneficiary of the aid)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, Italy, aid recipient, airport, energy grid, financial aid, trans-European network, transport network








C_2016098EN.01000602.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/6





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio (SACBO) SpA v European Commission, Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)
(Case C-281/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Trans-European Transport Network - Financial aid - Closure - Decision declaring certain costs to be ineligible and establishing the final account - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Locus standi - Person other than the beneficiary of the aid))
(2016/C 098/07)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio (SACBO) SpA (represented by: G. Greco, M. Muscardini and G. Carullo, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and E. Montaguti, acting as Agents, and by D. Gullo, avvocato), Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) (represented by: I. Ramallo, D. Silhol and Z. Szilvássy, acting as Agents, and by A. Lanzi and M. Bozzo, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio (SACBO) SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.
Case C-521/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — SOVAG — Schwarzmeer und Ostsee Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft v If Vahinkovakuutusyhtiö Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 6(2) — Jurisdiction — Action on a warranty or guarantee or other third party proceedings brought by a third party against a party to judicial proceedings before the court seised of the original proceedings)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, legal expenses








C_2016098EN.01001401.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/14





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — SOVAG — Schwarzmeer und Ostsee Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft v If Vahinkovakuutusyhtiö Oy
(Case C-521/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 6(2) - Jurisdiction - Action on a warranty or guarantee or other third party proceedings brought by a third party against a party to judicial proceedings before the court seised of the original proceedings))
(2016/C 098/17)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SOVAG — Schwarzmeer und Ostsee Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft

Defendant: If Vahinkovakuutusyhtiö Oy

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted to the effect that its scope includes an action brought by a third party, in accordance with national law, against the defendant in the original proceedings, and closely linked to those original proceedings, seeking reimbursement of compensation paid by that third party to the applicant in those original proceedings, provided that the action was not instituted solely with the object of removing that defendant from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in the case.


(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
Case C-35/16 P: Appeal brought on 21 January 2016 by Matratzen Concord GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 in Case T-526/14 Matratzen Concord GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, furniture industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016270EN.01001602.xml










25.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/16





Appeal brought on 21 January 2016 by Matratzen Concord GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 in Case T-526/14 Matratzen Concord GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-35/16 P)
(2016/C 270/25)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (represented by: I. Selting, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Mariano Barranco Rodriguez, Pablo Barranco Schnitzler
By order of 28 April 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Case C-50/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — Kurt Hesse v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hubert Ampferl, as insolvency administrator of Lutter & Partner GmbH, formerly Lutter & Partner GmbH, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) — Word mark Carrera — Opposition by the proprietor of the national and Community word marks CARRERA — Likelihood of confusion — Reputation acquired by the earlier mark)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016098EN.01001501.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/15





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — Kurt Hesse v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hubert Ampferl, as insolvency administrator of Lutter & Partner GmbH, formerly Lutter & Partner GmbH, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG
(Case C-50/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) - Word mark Carrera - Opposition by the proprietor of the national and Community word marks CARRERA - Likelihood of confusion - Reputation acquired by the earlier mark))
(2016/C 098/18)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Kurt Hesse (represented by: M. Krogmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent), Hubert Ampferl, as insolvency administrator of Lutter & Partner GmbH, formerly Lutter & Partner GmbH, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (represented by: E. Stolz, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Kurt Hesse to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
Case C-515/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU — Old-age benefits — Difference of treatment on the ground of age — Civil servants from a Member State under the age of 45 who leave that Member State to take up employment in another Member State or within an EU institution)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, civil servant, early retirement, equal treatment, free movement of workers, pension scheme, retirement conditions








C_2016098EN.01001302.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/13





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
(Case C-515/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU - Old-age benefits - Difference of treatment on the ground of age - Civil servants from a Member State under the age of 45 who leave that Member State to take up employment in another Member State or within an EU institution))
(2016/C 098/16)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: N. Ioannou and D. Kalli, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Declares that by failing to repeal, with retroactive effect from 1 May 2004, the age-related criterion in Article 27 of Law 97 (Ι)/1997 on Pensions which deters workers from leaving their Member State of origin in order to work in another Member State, or within an EU institution, or other international organisation and which has the effect of creating unequal treatment between migrant workers including those who work within the EU institutions or within another international organisation, on the one hand, and civil servants who have worked in Cyprus, on the other, the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU and under Article 4(3) TEU;










2)


Orders the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
Case C-103/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v European Commission (Appeal — Access to EU institution documents — Actions in areas interesting developing countries — Refusal to grant access to certain documents of the file concerning contract ‘LIEN 97-2011’ — Execution of a judgment of the General Court)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, enforcement of ruling, provision of documents








C_2016136EN.01000202.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/2





Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v European Commission
(Case C-103/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Access to EU institution documents - Actions in areas interesting developing countries - Refusal to grant access to certain documents of the file concerning contract ‘LIEN 97-2011’ - Execution of a judgment of the General Court))
(2016/C 136/03)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV (represented by: H.-H. Heyland, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016020EN.01000101.xml










21.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 20/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

20 January 2016
(2016/C 20/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0907




JPY


Japanese yen


127,28




DKK


Danish krone


7,4638




GBP


Pound sterling


0,77000




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3431




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0932




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6650




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,042




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,76




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4702




RON


Romanian leu


4,5326




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3307




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5916




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5965




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5366




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7134




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5697




KRW


South Korean won


1 326,46




ZAR


South African rand


18,2896




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1768




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6670




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 228,20




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7936




PHP


Philippine peso


52,219




RUB


Russian rouble


88,2005




THB


Thai baht


39,582




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4559




MXN


Mexican peso


20,0427




INR


Indian rupee


74,1627






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-35/16: Action brought on 21 January 2016 — Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v OHIM — Vieta Audio (Vita)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016106EN.01004201.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/42





Action brought on 21 January 2016 — Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v OHIM — Vieta Audio (Vita)
(Case T-35/16)
(2016/C 106/49)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vieta Audio, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Vita’ — Community trade mark registration No 9 993 361

Procedure before OHIM: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2015 in Case R 2232/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM and the other party to pay their own costs and those of the applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.