do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-240/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO (Form of a bar with four circles) (European Union trade mark — Application for three-dimensional European Union trade mark — Form of a bar with four circles — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rights of the defence — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2016-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016251EN.01002801.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/28





Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO (Form of a bar with four circles)
(Case T-240/15) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for three-dimensional European Union trade mark - Form of a bar with four circles - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rights of the defence - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))
(2016/C 251/31)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Muñiz Rodríguez and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2015 (Case R 1602/2014 1) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the form of a bar with four circles as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.
Case T-662/14: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Hungary v Commission (Common Agricultural Policy — Direct payments — Additional criteria for ecological focus areas with short rotation coppice — Article 45(8) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 — Article 46(9)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 — Misuse of power — Legal certainty — Non-discrimination — Legitimate expectations — Right to property — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2016-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: afforestation, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, equal treatment, ownership, principle of legal certainty, single payment scheme








C_2016251EN.01002402.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/24





Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Hungary v Commission
(Case T-662/14) (1)

((Common Agricultural Policy - Direct payments - Additional criteria for ecological focus areas with short rotation coppice - Article 45(8) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 - Article 46(9)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Misuse of power - Legal certainty - Non-discrimination - Legitimate expectations - Right to property - Obligation to state reasons))
(2016/C 251/26)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg, A. Sipos and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the part of the first sentence of Article 45(8) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and amending Annex X to that Regulation (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 1), which states the following: ‘by selecting from the list established pursuant to Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 the species that are most suitable from an ecological perspective, thereby excluding species that are clearly not indigenous’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hungary to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/929 of 1 June 2016 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Gall del Penedès (PGI))
Date: 2016-06-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Catalonia, Spain, designation of origin, fresh meat, labelling, poultrymeat, product designation








L_2016155EN.01000701.xml










14.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 155/7








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/929
of 1 June 2016
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Gall del Penedès (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, Spain's application to register the name ‘Gall del Penedès’ 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 ‘Gall del Penedès’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Gall del Penedès’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.1. Fresh meat (and offal), 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, 1 June 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 58, 13.2.2016, p. 42.

(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).
Case C-241/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Cluj v Niculaie Aurel Bob-Dogi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 8(1)(c) — Obligation to include in the European arrest warrant information concerning the existence of an ‘arrest warrant’ — No national arrest warrant issued prior to and separately from the European arrest warrant — Effect)
Date: 2016-06-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police cooperation, European arrest warrant, arrest








C_2016287EN.01001201.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/12





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Cluj v Niculaie Aurel Bob-Dogi
(Case C-241/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 8(1)(c) - Obligation to include in the European arrest warrant information concerning the existence of an ‘arrest warrant’ - No national arrest warrant issued prior to and separately from the European arrest warrant - Effect))
(2016/C 287/15)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Cluj

Defendant: Niculaie Aurel Bob-Dogi

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 8(1)(c) of the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, is to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘arrest warrant’, as used in that provision, must be understood as referring to a national arrest warrant that is distinct from the European arrest warrant.










2.


Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a European arrest warrant based on the existence of an ‘arrest warrant’ within the meaning of that provision does not contain any reference to the existence of a national arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority must refuse to give effect to it if, in the light of the information provided pursuant to Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, and any other information available to it, that authority concludes that the European arrest warrant is not valid because it was in fact issued in the absence of any national warrant separate from the European arrest warrant.






(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8027 — Investindustrial/Catelli/Artsana) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cosmetics industry, economic concentration, holding company, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, retail selling, toy industry, wholesale selling








C_2016194EN.01000101.xml










1.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8027 — Investindustrial/Catelli/Artsana)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 194/01)
On 23 May 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 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 32016M8027. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/930 of 1 June 2016 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Fogaça da Feira (PGI))
Date: 2016-06-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Northern Portugal, Portugal, confectionery product, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2016155EN.01000801.xml










14.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 155/8








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/930
of 1 June 2016
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Fogaça da Feira (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, Portugal's application to register the name ‘Fogaça da Feira’ 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 ‘Fogaça da Feira’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Fogaça da Feira’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 2.3. Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker's wares in accordance with 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, 1 June 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 58, 13.2.2016, p. 45.

(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).
Case C-314/16: Action brought on 1 June 2016 — European Commission v Czech Republic
Date: 2016-06-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European driving licence, European standard, infringement of EU law, technical standard, transport regulations, vehicle








C_2016287EN.01001602.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/16





Action brought on 1 June 2016 — European Commission v Czech Republic
(Case C-314/16)
(2016/C 287/20)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková and J. Hottiaux

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






1.


declare that:






(a)


by failing to ensure that the definition of groups C1 and C relates only to vehicles other than vehicles in groups D 1 and D, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and 4(4)(d) and (f) of Directive 2006/126/EC;










(b)


by restricting the definition of group D1 to vehicles designed and constructed for more than eight passengers, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and 4(4)(h) of Directive 2006/126/EC; (1)















2.


order Czech Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC provides that driving licences are to authorise the driving of power-driven vehicles in the categories defined in that article. Under Article 4(4)(d) and (f) of the Directive, the groups C1 and C are further defined. The condition that the group must include vehicles ‘other than those in categories D1 or D’ is expressly provided for in respect of both groups. The Czech legislation defining vehicle groups however does not include the condition that groups C1 and C must be restricted to ‘motor vehicles other than those in categories D1 or D’.
Article 4(4)(h) of Directive 2006/126/EC defines group D1 as a group including vehicles ‘designed and constructed for the carriage of no more than 16 passengers in addition to the driver’, without providing for a minimum number of passengers. The Czech legislation however includes the additional requirement that vehicles intended for the carriage of more than 8 passengers are to be classified in group D1.


(1)  OJ L 403, p. 18.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8019 — Advent International/Nuplex Industries) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, paints and varnishes








C_2016194EN.01000501.xml










1.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8019 — Advent International/Nuplex Industries)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 194/04)






1.


On 25 May 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Advent International Corporation (‘AIC’, USA), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Nuplex Industries Ltd (‘Nuplex’, New Zealand), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   Advent: globally active private equity investor who, among others, controls Allnex Belgium SA, a global producer of industrial coating resins,
—   Nuplex: global producer of industrial coating resins.










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 number M.8019 — Advent International/Nuplex Industries, 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’).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/932 of 1 June 2016 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Zagorski puran (PGI))
Date: 2016-06-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Croatia, designation of origin, fresh meat, frozen product, labelling, poultrymeat, product designation








L_2016155EN.01001001.xml










14.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 155/10








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/932
of 1 June 2016
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Zagorski puran (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, Croatia's application to register the name ‘Zagorski puran’ 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 ‘Zagorski puran’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Zagorski puran’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.1. Fresh meat (and offal), 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, 1 June 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 60, 16.2.2016, p. 13.

(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).
Case T-34/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Wolf Oil v EUIPO — SCT Lubricants (CHEMPIOIL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CHEMPIOIL — Earlier figurative mark CHAMPION — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, special chemicals, trade-mark law








C_2016251EN.01002601.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/26





Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Wolf Oil v EUIPO — SCT Lubricants (CHEMPIOIL)
(Case T-34/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark CHEMPIOIL - Earlier figurative mark CHAMPION - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 251/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wolf Oil Corp. (Hemiksem, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and J. Muyldermans, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: UAB SCT Lubricants (Klaipėda, Lithuania) (represented by: S. Labesius, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2014 (Case R 1596/2013-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Wolf Oil Corp. and UAB SCT Lubricants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Wolf Oil Corp. to pay the costs, including those incurred by UAB SCT Lubricants for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.






(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.