do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-202/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2016 — LR Health & Beauty Systems v OHIM — Robert McBride (LR nova pure.) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark LR nova pure. — Earlier international word mark NOVA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016098EN.01003401.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/34





Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2016 — LR Health & Beauty Systems v OHIM — Robert McBride (LR nova pure.)
(Case T-202/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark LR nova pure. - Earlier international word mark NOVA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 098/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Robert McBride Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2014 (Case R 272/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Robert McBride Ltd and LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
Corrigendum to Decision No 1/2011 (2011/293/EU) of the EU-Morocco Association Council of 30 March 2011 with regard to the amendment of Annex II of Protocol 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, containing the list of working or processing required to be carried out on non-originating materials in order for the product manufactured to obtain originating status (OJ L 141, 27.5.2011)
Date: 2016-01-26
Institutions: EU–Morocco Association Council
Subjects: European Association Agreement, Morocco, food processing, originating product








L_2016017EN.01002301.xml










26.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 17/23







Corrigendum to Decision No 1/2011 (2011/293/EU) of the EU-Morocco Association Council of 30 March 2011 with regard to the amendment of Annex II of Protocol 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, containing the list of working or processing required to be carried out on non-originating materials in order for the product manufactured to obtain originating status

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 141 of 27 May 2011
)


On page 113, Annex, HS heading ‘ex 8401’, third column:
for:


                  ‘Manufacture from materials of any heading, except that of the product’,

read:


                  ‘Manufacture from materials of any heading, except that of the product (12)




(12)  This rule shall apply until 31.12.2005.’.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7813 — Sanofi/Google/DMI JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-01-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, life sciences, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, provision of services








C_2016028EN.01000501.xml










26.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7813 — Sanofi/Google/DMI JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 28/06)






1.


On 19 January 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Sanofi SA (‘Sanofi’, France) and Google Inc. (‘Google’, United States), the latter through its wholly-owned subsidiary Verily Life Sciences LLC (‘Verily’, United States), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created company constituting a joint venture (the ‘JV’), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Sanofi is a global pharmaceutical group engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of healthcare products. In particular, Sanofi offers a range of solutions for the treatment of diabetes.










—


Verily was established in order to group together Google’s life sciences related projects.










—


The JV will offer services for the management and treatment of diabetes. In addition, the JV may commercialise certain products (such as specialised continuous glucose monitoring devices, insulin pumps and insulin) which can be used alongside the services.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.7813 — Sanofi/Google/DMI JV, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
Date: 2016-01-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, commemoration, euro, issuing of currency




C_2016028EN.01000401.xml










26.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/4





New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
(2016/C 28/05)



Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.


Issuing country
: Italy


Subject of commemoration
: 550th Anniversary of the death of Donatello


Description of the design
: Head of the David by Donatello (detail of the bronze sculpture kept in Florence, National Museum of Bargello): on the left the logo of the Italian Republic ‘RI’; below on two lines, ‘1466’ and ‘2016’; on the right ‘C.M.’, the initials of the author Claudia Momoni; below ‘DONATELLO’.
The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.


Number of coins to be issued
: 


Date of issue
: March 2016


(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7816 — EGP/F2i/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-01-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical industry, investment company, merger control, renewable energy








C_2016028EN.01000102.xml










26.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7816 — EGP/F2i/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 28/02)
On 7 December 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 the Italian 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 32015M7816. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7875 — ICG/Capiton/Prefere Resins Holding) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-01-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building materials, chemical industry, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control








C_2016028EN.01000101.xml










26.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7875 — ICG/Capiton/Prefere Resins Holding)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 28/01)
On 22 December 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 32015M7875. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-44/16: Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Novartis v EUIPO — SK Chemicals (Representation of a patch)
Date: 2016-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016111EN.01003202.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/32





Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Novartis v EUIPO — SK Chemicals (Representation of a patch)
(Case T-44/16)
(2016/C 111/38)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SK Chemicals GmbH (Eschborn, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a patch) — EU trade mark registration No 11 293 362

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2015 in Case R 2342/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 80(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of the principle of fair trial by the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.
Case C-45/16 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2016 by d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2015 in Case T-106/13 Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v European Commission
Date: 2016-01-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, damages, proof, termination of a contract








C_2016098EN.01002601.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/26





Appeal brought on 26 January 2016 by d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2015 in Case T-106/13 Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v European Commission

(Case C-45/16 P)
(2016/C 098/33)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis (represented by: Κonstantinos Damis, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 November 2015 in Case T-l06/13 d.d.Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v European Commission;










—


uphold the company’s action of 20.2.2013 in its entirety;










—


order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments







1.


Misapplication of the principle of good faith in the performance of the contract at issue.
The General Court erred in its assessment of Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code, with respect to the application of the principle of good faith in the performance of the contract.










2.


Misinterpretation and misapplication of the terms of the contract and manifestly erroneous assessment of the evidence.
The General Court erred in the application of Article ΙΙ.22 Financial Audits and Controls in Annex II to the signed ARTreat — 224297 agreement, being the contract at issue.










3.


Manifestly erroneous assessment of the evidence and deficient statement of reasons.
Insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons for the findings of the judgment.
The General Court erroneously and manifestly distorted the evidence adduced.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-01-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016028EN.01000201.xml










26.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

25 January 2016
(2016/C 28/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0815




JPY


Japanese yen


128,07




DKK


Danish krone


7,4624




GBP


Pound sterling


0,75890




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2758




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0981




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4585




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,70




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4690




RON


Romanian leu


4,5256




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2660




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5496




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5351




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4304




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6728




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5469




KRW


South Korean won


1 293,53




ZAR


South African rand


17,8580




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1156




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6695




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 985,15




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6208




PHP


Philippine peso


51,890




RUB


Russian rouble


86,0410




THB


Thai baht


38,869




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4276




MXN


Mexican peso


19,9970




INR


Indian rupee


73,2973






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-36/16: Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Enercon v EUIPO — Gamesa Eólica (Shades of green)
Date: 2016-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, turbine, wind energy








C_2016111EN.01003201.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/32





Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Enercon v EUIPO — Gamesa Eólica (Shades of green)
(Case T-36/16)
(2016/C 111/37)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: S. Overhage, Lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gamesa Eólica, SL (Sarriguren, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU colour mark consisting of different shades of green. EU trade mark No 2 346 542.

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2015 in Case R 597/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-42/16: Action brought on 26 January 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
Date: 2016-01-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European driving licence, infringement of EU law








C_2016118EN.01001201.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/12





Action brought on 26 January 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
(Case C-42/16)
(2016/C 118/15)
Language of the case: Finnish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by issuing duplicate driving licences whose administrative validity period expires on 18 January 2033, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 7(2) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (1) and that, by failing to join the EU driving licence network, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(5)(d) of Directive 2006/126/EC;










—


order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

One of the main aims of Directive 2006/126/EC is to raise the level of protection of driving licences. By applying the time limits under the directive, that aim may be realised and the latest methods made use of when issuing driving licences for preventing fraud and achieving the traffic safety objectives of the directive. Article 1 of Directive 2006/126/EC requires the introduction of a national driving licence based on the Community model in Annex I. Article 7(1) of the directive lays down requirements for driving licences and Article 7(2) defines the administrative validity of driving licences issued as from 19 February 2013. The administrative validity period of duplicate driving licences issued in Finland after 19 January 2013 can be much longer than is permitted by Article 7(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2006/126/EC.
In accordance with Article 7(5)(d) of Directive 2006/126/EC, the Member States are to use the EU driving licence network once the network is brought into operation. The EU driving licence network (RESPER) has been set up and it became operational on 19 January 2013. Since Finland has not joined the EU driving licence network (RESPER), it is not possible to ascertain in the network whether the conditions for issuing a driving licence are satisfied. The other Member States cannot check together with Finland the fulfilment of the conditions for issuing a driving licence, and cannot exchange information with Finland through the network. The exchange of information in accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2006/126/EC is thus not possible with Finland by using the EU driving licence network.


(1)  OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.
Case T-277/15: Order of the General Court of 26 January 2016 — Permapore v OHIM — José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins (Terraway) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Terraway — Earlier national and international word marks TERRAWAY — Partial rejection of the opposition — Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed — Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring that the appeal is deemed not to have been filed — Action manifestly lacking any basis in law)
Date: 2016-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, floor coverings, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016106EN.01003501.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/35





Order of the General Court of 26 January 2016 — Permapore v OHIM — José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins (Terraway)
(Case T-277/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Terraway - Earlier national and international word marks TERRAWAY - Partial rejection of the opposition - Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed - Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring that the appeal is deemed not to have been filed - Action manifestly lacking any basis in law))
(2016/C 106/40)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Permapore Ltd (Nenagh, Ireland) (represented by: J. Sales, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins Lda (Grijó, Portugal) (represented by: M. Oehen Mendes, R. Duarte Morais, M. Ribeiro da Fonseca and S. Luís Dias, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2015 (Case R 2496/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins Lda and Permapore Ltd.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Permapore Ltd is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM).










3.


José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins Lda is ordered to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.