do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases T-84/14 and T-97/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 February 2016 — Harrys Pubar and Harry’s New York Bar v OHIM — Harry’s New York Bar and Harrys Pubar (HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR — Earlier national figurative mark PUB CASINO Harrys RESTAURANG — Partial refusal of registration — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016111EN.01001902.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/19





Judgment of the General Court of 18 February 2016 — Harrys Pubar and Harry’s New York Bar v OHIM — Harry’s New York Bar and Harrys Pubar (HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR)
(Joined Cases T-84/14 and T-97/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR - Earlier national figurative mark PUB CASINO Harrys RESTAURANG - Partial refusal of registration - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 111/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer) (Case T-84/14); and Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer) (Case T-97/14)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Case T-84/14); and Harrys Pubar AB (intervener before the General Court in Case T-97/14)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2013 (joined Cases R 1038/2012-1 and R 1045/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Harrys Pubar AB and Harry’s New York Bar SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls, in Case T-84/14 points 1 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 November 2013 (joined Cases R 1038/2012-1 and R 1045/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Harrys Pubar AB and Harry’s New York Bar SA;










2.


Dismisses, in Case T-97/14, the action brought by Harry’s New York Bar;










3.


Orders Harry’s New York Bar to bear its own costs, to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Harrys Pubar in the proceedings before the General Court and to pay the costs incurred by Harrys Pubar in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM. OHIM is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by Harrys Pubar in the proceedings before the General Court.






(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
Case C-100/16 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2015 in Joined Cases T-233/11 and T-262/11: Greece and Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, mining operation, selling price, tax exemption, transfer of property








C_2016175EN.01000802.xml










17.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/8





Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2015 in Joined Cases T-233/11 and T-262/11: Greece and Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission
(Case C-100/16 P)
(2016/C 175/08)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou (represented by: V. Christianos, I. Soufleros, dikigoroi)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hellenic Republic, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2015 in Joined Cases T-233/11 and T-262/11 and refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling.










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


The judgment under appeal held that all the conditions of Article 107 (1) TFEU were satisfied with regard to two State aid measures; the first State aid measure concerns the sale of the Cassandra Mines to the Appellant at a price which is lower than their market value. The second measure concerns the waiver of tax, in relation to the land value of the mines.










2.


The Appellant relies on three grounds of appeal, two in respect of the first State aid measure and one in respect of the second State aid measure. More specifically:






—



In relation to the first State aid measure: the appellant submits that the assessment in the judgment under appeal with regard to the existence of an advantage is vitiated by errors in law, combined with defective reasoning and procedural irregularity in respect of the value of the mines.










—



In relation to the first State aid measure: the appellant submits that the assessment in the judgment under appeal with regard to the existence of an advantage is vitiated by errors in law, combined with defective reasoning, in respect of the land value.










—



In relation to the second State aid measure: the appellant submits that the assessment in the judgment under appeal with regard to the existence of an advantage is vitiated by error in law.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7892 — The Carlyle Group/Hunkemöller) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: clothing industry, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control








C_2016062EN.01000102.xml










18.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7892 — The Carlyle Group/Hunkemöller)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 62/02)
On 5 February 2016, 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 32016M7892. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Special Report No 19/2015 — ‘More attention to results needed to improve the delivery of technical assistance to Greece’
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU aid, EU programme, Greece, audit, economic recession, economic recovery, economic reform, financial aid, team work, technical cooperation








C_2016062EN.01000601.xml










18.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/6





Special Report No 19/2015
‘More attention to results needed to improve the delivery of technical assistance to Greece’
(2016/C 62/06)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 19/2015 ‘More attention to results needed to improve the delivery of technical assistance to Greece’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Publications (PUB)




12, rue Alcide De Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




Email: eca-info@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Case C-176/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 February 2016 — Council of the European Union v Bank Mellat, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Combating nuclear proliferation — Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Freezing of funds of an Iranian bank — Obligation to state reasons — Procedure for the adoption of the act — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Iran, arms control, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear weapon








C_2016145EN.01000401.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/4






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 February 2016 — Council of the European Union v Bank Mellat, European Commission
(Case C-176/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Combating nuclear proliferation - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Freezing of funds of an Iranian bank - Obligation to state reasons - Procedure for the adoption of the act - Manifest error of assessment))
(2016/C 145/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Bank Mellat (represented by: M. Brindle QC, R. Blakeley and V. Zaiwalla, Barristers, and by Z. Burbeza, P. Reddy, S. Zaiwalla and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors), European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Christie and S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Bank Mellat in both sets of proceedings;










3.


Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs in both sets of proceedings.






(1)  
            OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
Case T-81/16: Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO (two curved stripes on the sidewall of a tyre)
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pneumatic tyre, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016156EN.01005101.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/51






Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO (two curved stripes on the sidewall of a tyre)
(Case T-81/16)
(2016/C 156/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Müller, F. Togo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU position mark consisting in two curved stripes positioned on the sidewall of a tyre — Application for registration No 13 388 293

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2015 in Case R 1019/2015-1

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 several formal and procedural principles when assessing the absolute grounds;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-83/16: Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (WIDIBA)
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, bank, financial services, insurance, registered trade mark, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2016211EN.01005201.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/52






Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (WIDIBA)
(Case T-83/16)
(2016/C 211/66)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicants: Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA (Siena, Italy), Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan and D. Contini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ING-DIBa AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Applicants

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘WIDIBA’ — Application for registration No 12 192 308

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 in Joined Cases R 112/2015-2 and R 190/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision as it did not grant the request for restitutio in integrum, and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;




In the event of dismissal of conclusion 1) above,






—


annul the contested decision as it upheld the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the trade mark application No 12 192 308 for some specific goods and services, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 308 is eligible for registration for such goods and services or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures;




In any case,






—


annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld ING-DIBa’s appeal on credit cards, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 308 is eligible for registration for such goods or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures;




In any case,






—


order EUIPO to bear, in addition to its own costs, also the costs and legal fees borne by Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and Wise Dialog Bank SpA with regard to the present proceedings and the proceedings before the EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 81(1) and 60 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-446/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 February 2016 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Services for the removal of animal carcasses and waste from abattoirs — Maintenance of reserve capacity in the event of an outbreak — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Service of general economic interest — Manifest error of assessment — Compensation for the public service obligation — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, agricultural waste, control of State aid, epidemic, indemnification, services of general interest, waste disposal








C_2016145EN.01000902.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/9






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 February 2016 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission
(Case C-446/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Services for the removal of animal carcasses and waste from abattoirs - Maintenance of reserve capacity in the event of an outbreak - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Service of general economic interest - Manifest error of assessment - Compensation for the public service obligation - Obligation to state reasons))
(2016/C 145/10)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents, T. Lübbig and M. Klasse, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and C. Egerer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7903 — LÖWEN ENTERTAINMENT/Safari Holding/SCHMIDT Gruppe Service/Gesellschaft für Spielerschutz und Prävention) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, gambling addiction, game of chance, gaming establishment, holding company, merger control








C_2016062EN.01001401.xml










18.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/14





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7903 — LÖWEN ENTERTAINMENT/Safari Holding/SCHMIDT Gruppe Service/Gesellschaft für Spielerschutz und Prävention)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 62/08)






1.


On 10 February 2016, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings LÖWEN ENTERTAINMENT GmbH (‘LÖWEN’, Germany), belonging to the Novomatic Group, Safari Holding Verwaltungs GmbH (‘Safari’, Germany), controlled by Ardian France SA, and SCHMIDT Gruppe Service GmbH (‘SCHMIDT Service’, Germany) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created joint venture Gesellschaft für Spielerschutz und Prävention (‘the GU’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   LÖWEN: production and leasing of gambling machines, and production of sports entertainment machines and accessories,
—   Safari: operation of amusement arcades in Germany under the name LÖWEN PLAY,
—   SCHMIDT Service: management and support services in the fitness centre, entertainment centre and property sectors,
—   The GU: provision of services for the protection of gamblers and young people, and the prevention of addiction in the entertainment and gambling business.










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. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2), it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit to it their observations on the proposed operation.
Observations must reach the Commission no later than 10 days following the date on which this notification is published. They can be sent to the Commission under reference M.7903 — LÖWEN ENTERTAINMENT/Safari Holding/SCHMIDT Gruppe Service/Gesellschaft für Spielerschutz und Prävention by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/291 of 18 February 2016 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Jambon d'Auvergne (PGI)]
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Auvergne, France, Limousin, Midi-Pyrenées, designation of origin, labelling, meat product, product designation








L_2016055EN.01000101.xml










2.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 55/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/291
of 18 February 2016
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Jambon d'Auvergne (PGI)]


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France's application to register the name ‘Jambon d'Auvergne’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Jambon d'Auvergne’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Jambon d'Auvergne’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.2 Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 February 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 331, 8.10.2015, p. 8.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).