do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-218/16: Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Mühlbauer Technology v EUIPO (Magicrown)
Date: 2016-05-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dental medicine, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016232EN.01003201.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/32





Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Mühlbauer Technology v EUIPO (Magicrown)
(Case T-218/16)
(2016/C 232/41)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Mühlbauer Technology GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Zintler and A. Stolz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Magicrown’ — Application No 13 627 641

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2016 in Case R 1213/2015-4

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 Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-213/16: Action brought on 9 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FREE STYLE)
Date: 2016-05-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016243EN.01004101.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/41





Action brought on 9 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FREE STYLE)
(Case T-213/16)
(2016/C 243/45)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elho Business & Sport Vertriebs GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FREE STYLE’— EU trade mark No 4 761 731

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2016 in Case R 387/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.





Pleas in law

The pleas in law and principal arguments are those put forward in Case T-212/16, El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FRee STyLe).
Case T-225/16: Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Matratzen Concord v EUIPO (Ganz schön ausgeschlafen)
Date: 2016-05-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household article, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016232EN.01003501.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/35





Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Matratzen Concord v EUIPO (Ganz schön ausgeschlafen)
(Case T-225/16)
(2016/C 232/45)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Selting, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before the EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Ganz schön ausgeschlafen’ — Application for registration No 13 610 316

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 24 February 2016 in Case R 1234/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-258/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Finnair Oyj v Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia
Date: 2016-05-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, damage, right of action








C_2016260EN.01002902.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/29





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Finnair Oyj v Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia
(Case C-258/16)
(2016/C 260/37)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finnair Oyj

Defendant: Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 31(4) of the Montreal Convention to be interpreted as meaning that, to preserve a right of action, it is necessary, in addition to giving notice of a complaint in due time, that the complaint be made in writing within the times provided for under Article 31(3)?










2.


If, to preserve a right of action, a complaint must be made in writing in due time, is Article 31(3) of the Montreal Convention to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of writing may be fulfilled in an electronic procedure and also by the registration of the damage in the information system of the carrier?










3.


Does the Montreal Convention preclude an interpretation by which the requirement of writing is regarded as fulfilled where, with the knowledge of the passenger, a representative of the carrier records in writing the notice of complaint/the complaint either on paper or electronically in the carrier’s system?










4.


Does Article 31 of the Montreal Convention subject a complaint to further substantive requirements than that of giving notice to the carrier of the damage sustained?
Case C-256/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
Date: 2016-05-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, application of EU law, footwear industry, import (EU), originating product








C_2016260EN.01002901.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/29





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
(Case C-256/16)
(2016/C 260/36)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Deichmann SE

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Question referred

Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 (1) of 17 February 2016 establishing a procedure for assessing certain market economy treatment and individual treatment claims made by exporting producers from China and Vietnam, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 valid?


(1)  OJ 2016 L 41, p. 3.
Case T-212/16: Action brought on 9 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FRee STyLe)
Date: 2016-05-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016243EN.01004001.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/40





Action brought on 9 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FRee STyLe)
(Case T-212/16)
(2016/C 243/44)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elho Business & Sport Vertriebs GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘FRee STyLe’— EU trade mark No 10 317 642

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2016 in Case R 377/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.










—


Coexistence of the opposing marks and other signs containing the term ‘FREE STYLE’.










—


Failure in the decision of the Board of Appeal to fulfil the obligation to dismiss evidence adduced by the applicant outside the prescribed period as laid down in Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-257/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Elke Roch, Jürgen Roch v Germanwings GmbH
Date: 2016-05-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aircraft, bird, consumer protection, indemnification, reservation, transport accident, traveller








C_2016279EN.01001502.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Elke Roch, Jürgen Roch v Germanwings GmbH
(Case C-257/16)
(2016/C 279/21)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Elke Roch, Jürgen Roch

Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is a technical defect of the aircraft caused by bird strike, that is, a collision in the air between the aircraft and birds, an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the regulation? (1)











2.


Is Article 5(3) of the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the operating air carrier can rely also on extraordinary circumstances which did not occur on the flight booked by the passenger but on an immediately preceding flight with the aircraft scheduled for the booked flight as part of a flight diagram?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case T-234/16: Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Meissen Keramik v EUIPO — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen (Meissen)
Date: 2016-05-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, ceramics, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016243EN.01004601.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/46





Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Meissen Keramik v EUIPO — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen (Meissen)
(Case T-234/16)
(2016/C 243/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Meissen Keramik GmbH (Meißen, Germany) (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and M. Bagh, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH (Meißen, Germany)

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 word mark ‘Meissen’ — EU trade mark No 3 743 663

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2016 in Cases R 2620/2014-4 and R 2622/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it finds against the applicant, that is to say in so far as the appeal lodged by the applicant for a declaration of revocation and applicant in the present proceedings was dismissed and in so far as, in addition, owing to the appeal filed by the proprietor of the trade mark, the contested decision of the Cancellation Division was annulled and the application for cancellation was also rejected in that respect;










—


in so far as the Court regards itself as authorised to make an alteration: declare EU trade mark No 3 743 663 to be revoked in its entirety — in the alternative or incidentally: refer the case back to EUIPO;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-219/16: Action brought on 9 March 2016 — Aldi v EUIPO (VISAGE)
Date: 2016-05-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, electrical equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016232EN.01003202.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/32





Action brought on 9 March 2016 — Aldi v EUIPO (VISAGE)
(Case T-219/16)
(2016/C 232/42)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘VISAGE’ — Application for registration No 13 502 364

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2016 in Case R 507/2015-5

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) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-220/16: Action brought on 9 May 2016 – Perry Ellis International Group v EUIPO (PRO PLAYER)
Date: 2016-05-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016232EN.01003301.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/33





Action brought on 9 May 2016 – Perry Ellis International Group v EUIPO (PRO PLAYER)
(Case T-220/16)
(2016/C 232/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Ltd (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: O. Günzel, C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘PRO PLAYER’ – Application for registration No 13 258 595

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 in Case R 1091/2015-2

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










—


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










—


Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.