do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-68/16: Action brought on 15 February 2016 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Munich (Representation of a cross on the side of a sports shoe)
Date: 2016-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2016111EN.01004001.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/40





Action brought on 15 February 2016 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Munich (Representation of a cross on the side of a sports shoe)
(Case T-68/16)
(2016/C 111/49)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Munich, SL (Capellades, Spain)

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: EU figurative mark (Representation of a cross on the side of a sports shoe — EU trade mark No 2 923 852

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2015 in Case R 2345/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO to bear the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-72/16: Action brought on 15 February 2016 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile)
Date: 2016-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic commerce, registered trade mark, retail trade, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2016118EN.01003702.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/37





Action brought on 15 February 2016 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile)
(Case T-72/16)
(2016/C 118/43)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: BBY Solutions, Inc. (Minneapolis, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Worldwide Sales Corporation España, SL (Sant Vicenç dels Horts, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BEST BUY mobile’ — Application for registration No 7 213 424

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2015 in Case R 53/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul the decision of the Opposition division dated 6 November 2014 in Opposition No. B 1485137;










—


accept for registration the CTM Application No 007213424;










—


order EUIPO to pay its own costs and those of the Applicant.





Pleas in law







—


The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the dominant and distinctive elements of the marks;










—


The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the overall impression created by the marks;










—


The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the identity of the services covered by the marks; and










—


The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the Opponent’s earlier mark and the Applicant’s Mark.
Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/543 of 17 July 2015 approving the adjustment programme of Greece (2015/1182)
Date: 2016-02-15
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU borrowing, Greece, economic policy, economic recession, financial aid, general budget (EU), public finance, stability programme








L_2016091EN.01002601.xml










7.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 91/26








            COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2016/543
of 17 July 2015
         
approving the adjustment programme of Greece (2015/1182) (1)



THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States in the euro area experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 sets rules for the approval of a macro-economic adjustment programme for a Member State in receipt of financial assistance, including from the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM). These rules need to be consistent with the provisions of Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 (3) establishing the EFSM.












(2)


Greece has been granted financial assistance from the EFSM by Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/542 (4) on granting short-term Union financial assistance to Greece.












(3)


For reasons of consistency, the approval of the macroeconomic adjustment programme for Greece under Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 should be done by reference to the relevant provisions of Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/542,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The measures specified in Article 3(3) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/542 to be taken by Greece as part of its adjustment programme are hereby approved.


Article 2
This Decision shall take effect upon the date of its notification.


Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.


Article 4
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 17 July 2015.


For the Council


The President

J. ASSELBORN
            





(1)  This act has originally been adopted in English only and published in OJ L 192, 18.7.2015, p. 19.

(2)  
            OJ L 140, 27.5.2013, p. 1.

(3)  Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (OJ L 118, 12.5.2010, p. 1).

(4)  See page 22 of this Official Journal.
Case C-91/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2016 — Caixabank S.A. v Héctor Benlliure Santiago
Date: 2016-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, interest, unfair terms of contract








C_2016175EN.01000801.xml










17.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2016 — Caixabank S.A. v Héctor Benlliure Santiago
(Case C-91/16)
(2016/C 175/07)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Caixabank S.A.

Defendant: Héctor Benlliure Santiago

Question referred

Is the use of an agreed remunerative interest rate in a situation in which default interest is applicable in accordance with Directive 93/13 (1) or, on the contrary, does it presuppose an amendment of the contract which is not permitted under EU case-law?


(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case T-62/16: Action brought on 15 February 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Infracore (PUMA)
Date: 2016-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, machinery, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016118EN.01003601.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/36





Action brought on 15 February 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Infracore (PUMA)
(Case T-62/16)
(2016/C 118/41)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd (Incheon, South Korea)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: figurative mark containing the word element ‘PUMA’ — EU trade mark application No 11 376 209

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2015 in Case R 1052/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd. to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-177/15: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2016 — Grandel v OHIM — Beautyge Beauty Group (Beautygen)
Date: 2016-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016136EN.01004502.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/45





Order of the General Court of 15 February 2016 — Grandel v OHIM — Beautyge Beauty Group (Beautygen)
(Case T-177/15) (1)

(2016/C 136/64)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.
Case T-82/15: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2016 — InAccess Networks Integrated Systems v Commission (Seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) — Grant agreement for the Atraco project — Debit notes and decisions contained in letters — No need to adjudicate in part — Contractual nature of the dispute — Partial inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, audit, reimbursement of aid, right to justice, support policy








C_2016136EN.01003402.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/34





Order of the General Court of 15 February 2016 — InAccess Networks Integrated Systems v Commission
(Case T-82/15) (1)

((Seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) - Grant agreement for the Atraco project - Debit notes and decisions contained in letters - No need to adjudicate in part - Contractual nature of the dispute - Partial inadmissibility))
(2016/C 136/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: InAccess Networks Integrated Systems — Applications Services for Telecommunication and Related Equipment Commercial and Industrial Co. SA (Maroussi, Greece) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler and G. Pandey, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Di Paolo and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission decision contained in the letter of 11 December 2014 by which the Commission confirmed its refusal to finance costs invoked by the applicant, of the Commission decision contained in debit note No 3241211514 of 23 October 2012, and of the Commission decision contained in the letter of 7 December 2012 requesting the applicant to return the funds paid and to pay liquidated damages of EUR 12 814,10.

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims directed against the Commission decision contained in the letter of 7 October 2012 and the debit note of 23 October 2012;










2.


Dismisses the action for the remainder, as being manifestly inadmissible;










3.


Orders InAccess Networks Integrated Systems — Applications Services for Telecommunication and Related Equipment Commercial and Industrial Co. SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.
Case C-90/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 15 February 2016 — The English Bridge Union Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
Date: 2016-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, provision of services, sport, tax exemption








C_2016145EN.01002301.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/23






Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 15 February 2016 — The English Bridge Union Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
(Case C-90/16)
(2016/C 145/29)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: The English Bridge Union Limited

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Questions referred







1.


What are the essential characteristics which an activity must exhibit in order for it to be a ‘sport’ within the meaning of article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28th November 2006 (‘the Principal VAT Directive’)? In particular must an activity have a significant (or not insignificant) physical element which is material to its outcome or is it sufficient that it has a significant mental element which is material to its outcome?










2.


Is duplicate contract bridge a ‘sport’ within article 132(1)(m) of the Principal VAT Directive?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

OJ L 347, p. 1
Case T-64/16: Action brought on 15 February 2016 — Michał Wieromiejczyk v EUIPO (Tasty Puff)
Date: 2016-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2016111EN.01003901.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/39





Action brought on 15 February 2016 — Michał Wieromiejczyk v EUIPO (Tasty Puff)
(Case T-64/16)
(2016/C 111/47)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Michał Wieromiejczyk (Pabianice, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Tasty Puff’ — Application for registration No 13 072 061

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2015 in Case R 3058/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the action to be well founded;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


amend the contested decision by requiring EUIPO to grant the right to Trade Mark No 13072061 ‘Tasty Puff’;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law

Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
Breach of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-93/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante, Sección octava (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2016 — The Irish Dairy Board Co-operative Limited v Tindale & Stanton Ltd España, S.L.
Date: 2016-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016156EN.01002801.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante, Sección octava (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2016 — The Irish Dairy Board Co-operative Limited v Tindale & Stanton Ltd España, S.L.
(Case C-93/16)
(2016/C 156/37)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Alicante, Sección octava

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: The Irish Dairy Board Co-operative Limited

Respondent: Tindale & Stanton Ltd España, S.L.

Questions referred







1.


In so far as Article 9(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) requires that, in order for the proprietor of a Community trade mark to prevent a third party not having his consent from using a sign in the course of trade in the cases set out in that provision, there should exist a likelihood of confusion, can this provision be interpreted as meaning that there is no likelihood of confusion where the earlier Community trade mark has, owing to the acquiescence of the proprietor, peacefully coexisted for some years with similar national trade marks in two Member States of the European Union, so that the absence of a likelihood of confusion in those two Member States is extended to other Member States, or to the European Union as a whole, regard being had to the unitary treatment that the Community trade mark requires?










2.


In the situation set out in the previous paragraph, can the geographical, demographic, economic or other circumstances of the States in which the coexistence has occurred be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the likelihood of confusion, so that the absence of a likelihood of confusion in those Member States can be extended to a third Member State, or to the European Union as a whole?










3.


With regard to the case referred to in subparagraph (c) of Article 9(1) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation, must this provision be interpreted as meaning that, where an earlier trade mark has coexisted with the contested sign for a certain number of years in two European Union Member States without the proprietor of the earlier trade mark opposing it, this acquiescence on the part of the proprietor towards the use of the later sign in these two States in particular can be extended to the remaining territory of the European Union for the purpose of determining whether there is due cause for a third party’s use of the later sign, on account of the unitary treatment that the Community trade mark requires?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Council Decision of 15 February 2016 appointing a member and an alternate member of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems for Romania
Date: 2016-02-15
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Romania, advisory committee (EU), appointment of members, social security








C_2016062EN.01000401.xml










18.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/4





COUNCIL DECISION
of 15 February 2016
appointing a member and an alternate member of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems for Romania
(2016/C 62/04)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1), and in particular Article 75 thereof,
Having regard to the lists of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,
Whereas:






(1)


By its Decision of 13 October 2015 (2), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems for the period from 20 October 2015 to 19 October 2020.










(2)


The government of Romania has submitted nominations for two posts to be filled,




HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The following are hereby appointed as a member and an alternate member of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems for the period from 20 October 2015 to 19 October 2020:
I.   TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVES







Country


Members


Alternates




Romania


Mr Dumitru FORNEA


Mr Radmilo FELIX




Article 2
The Council shall appoint the members and alternate members who have not yet been nominated at a later date.
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 15 February 2016.


For the Council


The President

M.H.P. VAN DAM




(1)  OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 341, 16.10.2015, p. 4.
Case T-67/16: Action brought on 15 February 2016 — fleur ami v EUIPO — 8 Seasons Design (Lamps)
Date: 2016-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, lighting equipment








C_2016111EN.01003902.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/39





Action brought on 15 February 2016 — fleur ami v EUIPO — 8 Seasons Design (Lamps)
(Case T-67/16)
(2016/C 111/48)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: fleur ami GmbH (Willich, Germany) (represented by: B. Potthoff, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 8 Seasons Design GmbH (Eschweiler, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design ‘Lamps’ — Application No 2 252 213-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2015 in Case R 2164/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


in the alternative arrange a hearing;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/208 of 15 February 2016 amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/260 extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for Human Rights
Date: 2016-02-15
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: appointment of members, diplomatic representation, human rights, the EU's international role




L_2016039EN.01004701.xml










16.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 39/47








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2016/208
of 15 February 2016
         
amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/260 extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for Human Rights


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 25 July 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/440/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Stavros LAMBRINIDIS as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights.












(2)


On 17 February 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/260 (2) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 28 February 2017.












(3)


Decision (CFSP) 2015/260 sets out the financial reference amount intended to cover the period from 1 March 2015 to 29 February 2016. A new financial reference amount should be established for the period from 1 March 2016 to 28 February 2017.












(4)


Decision (CFSP) 2015/260 should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In Article 5 of Decision (CFSP) 2015/260, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:


‘2.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR from 1 March 2016 to 28 February 2017 shall be EUR 825 000.’.




Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 15 February 2016.


For the Council


The President

F. MOGHERINI
            





(1)  Council Decision 2012/440/CFSP of 25 July 2012 appointing the European Union Special Representative for Human Rights (OJ L 200, 27.7.2012, p. 21).

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/260 of 17 February 2015 extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for Human Rights (OJ L 43, 18.2.2015, p. 29).