do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-775/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark ABTRONIC — Earlier EU word mark TRONIC — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2016232EN.01001501.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/15





Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)
(Case T-775/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark ABTRONIC - Earlier EU word mark TRONIC - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion))
(2016/C 232/19)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Red Lemon Inc. (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2014 (Case R 2060/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Red Lemon Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Red Lemon Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.
Case T-776/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONICX2) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark ABTRONICX2 — Earlier EU word mark TRONIC — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2016232EN.01001601.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/16





Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONICX2)
(Case T-776/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark ABTRONICX2 - Earlier EU word mark TRONIC - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion))
(2016/C 232/20)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Red Lemon Inc. (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2014 (Case R 2078/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Red Lemon Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Red Lemon Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
Case T-750/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Ivo-Kermartin v EUIPO — Ergo Versicherungsgruppe (ELGO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ELGO — Earlier EU word and figurative marks ERGO — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Successive restrictions on the application for registration — Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Rule 69 of Regulation No 2868/95)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, energy-generating product, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2016232EN.01001402.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/14





Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Ivo-Kermartin v EUIPO — Ergo Versicherungsgruppe (ELGO)
(Case T-750/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ELGO - Earlier EU word and figurative marks ERGO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Successive restrictions on the application for registration - Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Rule 69 of Regulation No 2868/95))
(2016/C 232/18)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Ivo-Kermartin GmbH (Walzenhausen, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Henkel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 August 2014 (Case R 473/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG and Ivo-Kermartin GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ivo-Kermartin GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
Case F-92/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 12 May 2016 — Guittet v Commission (Civil service — Former official — Social security — Accident — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Closure of the procedure — Fixing of rate of partial permanent invalidity — Payment supplementary to the lump sum paid in the event of partial permanent invalidity — Implementation of a judgment annulling a measure — Incurable and total deafness)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, damages, disability insurance, indemnification, physically disabled person, staff regulations (EU)








C_2016222EN.01003702.xml










20.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/37






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 12 May 2016 — Guittet v Commission
(Case F-92/15) (1)

((Civil service - Former official - Social security - Accident - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Closure of the procedure - Fixing of rate of partial permanent invalidity - Payment supplementary to the lump sum paid in the event of partial permanent invalidity - Implementation of a judgment annulling a measure - Incurable and total deafness))
(2016/C 222/48)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Christian Guittet (Cannes, France) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr, Agent, and C. Mélotte, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of the decision reassessing the rate of the applicant’s partial permanent invalidity and, secondly, the decision partially rejecting the applicant’s complaint, and an application seeking compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of 6 October 2014 closing the procedure opened under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union following the accident of 8 December 2003, of which Mr Guittet was the victim, in so far as that decision fixed at 65 % the rate of partial permanent invalidity granted to Mr Guittet under Article 12 of the rules common to the institutions of the European Union on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, in the version in force prior to 1 January 2006;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay Mr Guittet the sum of EUR 5 000;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Guittet.






(1)  OJ C 294, 7/9/2015, p. 83.
Case T-693/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Hamr — Sport v Commission (State aid — Sports facilities provided by non-profit organisations — Operating or investment subsidies seeking to enable the construction, operation, maintenance, reconstruction or development of sports facilities which are non-profit — Decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the internal market — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Action for annulment — Individual concern — Notion of interested party — Admissibility — No effect on the trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest — No doubts which justify initiating the formal investigation procedure)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Czechia, State aid, control of State aid, investment aid, non-profit organisation, sports facilities








C_2016232EN.01001301.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/13





Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Hamr — Sport v Commission
(Case T-693/14) (1)

((State aid - Sports facilities provided by non-profit organisations - Operating or investment subsidies seeking to enable the construction, operation, maintenance, reconstruction or development of sports facilities which are non-profit - Decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the internal market - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Notion of interested party - Admissibility - No effect on the trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest - No doubts which justify initiating the formal investigation procedure))
(2016/C 232/16)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Hamr — Sport a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Capoušek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 3602 final of 11 June 2014 relating to State aid SA.33575 (2013/NN) — Czech Republic in favour of non-profit sports facilities granted by central public institutions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hamr — Sport a.s. to pay the costs, except those incurred by the Czech Republic.










3.


The Czech Republic must be ordered to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.
Case C-265/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Torino (Italy) lodged on 12 May 2016 — VCAST Limited v R.T.I. SpA
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet, audiovisual piracy, computer piracy, copyright, data recording, freedom to provide services, literary and artistic property, on line data service, provision of services








C_2016270EN.01003001.xml










25.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/30





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Torino (Italy) lodged on 12 May 2016 — VCAST Limited v R.T.I. SpA
(Case C-265/16)
(2016/C 270/34)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VCAST Limited

Defendant: R.T.I. SpA

Questions referred







1.


Are national rules prohibiting a commercial undertaking from providing private individuals with so-called cloud computing services for the remote video recording of private copies of works protected by copyright, by means of that commercial undertaking’s active involvement in the recording, without the rightholder’s consent, compatible with EU law, in particular with Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, (1) (as well as Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (2) and the founding Treaty)?










2.


Are national rules which allow a commercial undertaking to provide private individuals with so-called cloud computing services for the remote video recording of private copies of works protected by copyright, even where the active involvement of that commercial undertaking in the recording is entailed, and even without the rightholder’s consent, against a flat-rate compensation in favour of the rightholder, in essence subjecting the services to a compulsory licensing system, compatible with EU law, in particular with Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (as well as Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market and the founding Treaty)?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.

(2)  ‘Directive on electronic commerce’, OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1.
Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Czechia, air transport, invitation to tender, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2016171EN.01000401.xml










12.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/4





Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 171/05)






Member State


Czech Republic




Concerned routes


Ostrava — Amsterdam




Period of validity of the contract


1 October 2016 — 30 September 2020




Deadline for submission of tenders


27 June 2016, 10:00 CET




Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligations can be obtained


For further information please contact:





Moravskoslezský kraj — Krajský úřad




28. října 117




702 18 Ostrava




CZECH REPUBLIC




Tel. +420 595622716




Fax +420 595622226




Email: martin.vymetal@msk.cz




Internet: www.msk.cz




or





CÍSAŘ, ČEŠKA, SMUTNÝ s.r.o., advokátní kancelář




Hvězdova 1716/2b




140 00 Praha 4




CZECH REPUBLIC




Tel. +420 224827884




Fax +420 224827879




Email: sniehotta@akccs.cz




Internet: www.akccs.cz
Case T-233/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 May 2016 by José Luis Ruiz Molina against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 March 2016 in Case F-60/15, Ruiz Molina v OHIM
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition (EU), dismissal, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), temporary employment








C_2016243EN.01004501.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/45





Appeal brought on 12 May 2016 by José Luis Ruiz Molina against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 March 2016 in Case F-60/15, Ruiz Molina v OHIM
(Case T-233/16 P)
(2016/C 243/50)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: José Luis Ruiz Molina (San Juan de Alicante, Spain) (represented by: N. Lhoëst and S. Michiels, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should






—


set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 2 March 2016 in Case F-60/15;










—


order the respondent to the appeal to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings in their entirety.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.






1.


First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union.










2.


Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the principle of res judicata attaching to the judgment of 15 September 2011 in Bennett and Others v OHIM, F-102/09, EU:F:2011:138.










3.


Third ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) which implemented the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999 between the general cross-industry organisations, and infringement of well established principles and standards of international social and labour law on stable employment.










4.


Fourth ground of appeal, alleging failure to state reasons for the judgment under appeal.
Case F-91/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2016 — Chatel v Council (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Pension rights acquired, before entering the service of the European Union, under a national pension scheme — Transfer to the EU’s pension scheme — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years, accepted by the applicant, based on new General Implementing Provisions — Concept of measure adversely affecting a person — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 81 of the Rules of procedure)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016222EN.01004302.xml










20.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/43






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2016 — Chatel v Council
(Case F-91/14) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired, before entering the service of the European Union, under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU’s pension scheme - Proposal concerning additional pensionable years, accepted by the applicant, based on new General Implementing Provisions - Concept of measure adversely affecting a person - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 81 of the Rules of procedure))
(2016/C 222/56)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Zlata Chatel (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially D. de Abreu Caldas, M. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, then D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and, finally, J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights to the European Union pension scheme applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 421 of 24/11/2014, p. 63.
Joined Cases T-322/14 and T-325/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — mobile.international v EUIPO — Rezon (mobile.de) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word and figurative trade marks mobile.de — Earlier national figurative mark mobile — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 15(1), Article 57(2) and Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 40(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2016232EN.01000901.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/9





Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — mobile.international v EUIPO — Rezon (mobile.de)
(Joined Cases T-322/14 and T-325/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word and figurative trade marks mobile.de - Earlier national figurative mark mobile - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 15(1), Article 57(2) and Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 40(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
(2016/C 232/10)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: mobile.international GmbH (Kleinmachnow, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: P. Kanchev and T. Ignatova, lawyers)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January (Case R 922/2013-1) and 13 February 2014 (Case R 951/2013-1) relating to two cancellation proceedings between mobile.international GmbH and Rezon OOD.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders mobile.international GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
Case T-643/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark ABTRONIC — Earlier EU word mark TRONIC — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sports facilities, supermarket, trade-mark law








C_2016232EN.01001201.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/12





Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)
(Case T-643/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark ABTRONIC - Earlier EU word mark TRONIC - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion))
(2016/C 232/14)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Red Lemon Inc. (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2014 (Case R 1899/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Red Lemon Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Red Lemon Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.