do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-306/16: Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Gamet v EUIPO — ‘Metal-Bud’ Robert Gubała (Door handle)
Date: 2016-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: building materials, designs and models








C_2016296EN.01002601.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/26





Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Gamet v EUIPO — ‘Metal-Bud’ Robert Gubała (Door handle)
(Case T-306/16)
(2016/C 296/35)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Gamet S.A. (Toruń, Poland) (represented by: A. Rolbiecka, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Firma produkcyjno-handlowa ‘Metal-Bud’ Robert Gubała (Świątniki Górne, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design ‘Door handle’ — Community design No 2 208 066-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17/03/2016 in Case R 2040/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO dated 17 march 2016 given in case R 2040/2014-3, concerning proceedings for a declaration of invalidity of the RCD 002208066-0001;










—


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





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 by accepting belated evidence — a declaration of the representative of the undertaking Klamex, regardless of the fact that the subject evidence contained information strictly new for the proceedings, not confirmed by evidence presented before the Invalidity Division;










—


Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 by incorrect and arbitrary finding that evidence presented by the other party confirmed that there were no material differences between the RCD and the design of the ‘DORA’ handle in:






—


the shape and the proportions of the shaft,










—


the proportions of the shaft and grip part,










—


the depth of the grip handle,










—


the degree of beveling of the grip handle,










—


rounding of the edges of handle.














—


Infringement of Articles 4 and 6(2) of Regulation No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 through incorrect assessment of freedom in designing door handles by stating that the designer’s degree of freedom in designing door handles was almost unlimited and resulted from the fact that the Board had not taken into consideration features which a designer should have taken into consideration by designing the door handle;










—


Infringement of Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 by incorrect finding that the RCD does not produce an overall impression on the informed user that is different from the impression produced by the ‘DORA’ handle.
Case T-588/15: Order of the General Court of 13 June 2016 — GABO:mi v Commission (Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Grant agreements — Suspension of payments — Lifting of the suspension — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2016-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, biotechnology, financial aid, medical research, research and development, research programme, suspension of aid








C_2016305EN.01003502.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/35





Order of the General Court of 13 June 2016 — GABO:mi v Commission
(Case T-588/15) (1)

((Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Grant agreements - Suspension of payments - Lifting of the suspension - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 305/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG (Munich (Germany)) (represented by: M. Ahlhaus and C. Mayer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of Commission Decisions of 29 July and 19 August 2015 to suspend all payments that might be made to the applicant by Directorates E ‘Health’ and F ‘Bio-economy’ of its Directorate-General (DG) for Research and Innovation, secondly, Commission Decision of 25 August 2015 instructing the coordinator of project Biofector not to transfer any amount to the applicant in the context of that project, thirdly, Commission Decision of 28 August 2015 maintaining the suspension of payments by Directorate E of its DG for Research and Innovation, fourthly, Commission Decision of 15 September 2015 instructing the coordinators of projects ‘The hip trial’ and EU-CERT-ICD not to transfer any amount to the applicant in the context of those projects, fifthly, Commission Decision of 5 October 2015, addressed to the coordinator of project NEMO, to consider the applicant’s costs ineligible and to adjust as a result the payments due to the applicant, sixthly, Commission Decision of 14 October 2015, addressed to the coordinator of project Procardio, to suspend payments to the applicant by Directorate G ‘Energy’ of its DG for Research and Innovation, seventhly, Commission Decisions of 23 October and 6 November 2015 taken in execution of that decision of 28 August 2015 and addressed to the coordinators of projects LENA and Re-liver and, eighthly, Commission Decision of 11 November 2015, addressed to the coordinator of project ENS@T-Cancer, to consider the applicant’s costs ineligible and to adjust as a result the payments due to it.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.










2.


GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
Case T-299/16: Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Scheffler v. EUIPO — Doc Generici (docfauna)
Date: 2016-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal feedingstuffs, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2016296EN.01002401.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/24





Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Scheffler v. EUIPO — Doc Generici (docfauna)
(Case T-299/16)
(2016/C 296/32)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Manfred Scheffler (Leininingen, Germany) (represented by: T. Büttner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Doc Generici Srl (Milano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘docfauna’ — Application for registration No 12 660 056

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 in Case R 885/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 6 March 2015 upholding opposition No B 2 354 523.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009;
Case T-300/16: Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Jindal Saw et Jindal Saw Italia v Commission
Date: 2016-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: India, cast-iron, countervailing charge, import (EU), originating product, piping, tube








C_2016314EN.01002402.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/24





Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Jindal Saw et Jindal Saw Italia v Commission
(Case T-300/16)
(2016/C 314/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India) and Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/387 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron), originating in India, in so far as it relates to the Applicants; and










—


order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that by means of the determination of the export prices, the Commission infringed Articles 2(8), 2(9), 3(2), 3(3), 3(6) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that by means of its price effects, injury and causation determinations, the Commission infringed Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 3(7), 3(8), 4(1), 5(4) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the failure to disclose essential facts and considerations and to grant sufficient time to submit comments infringed Articles 20(4) and 20(5) of Council Regulation No 1225/2009.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/986 of 13 June 2016 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Γλυκό Τριαντάφυλλο Αγρού (Glyko Triantafyllo Agrou) (PGI))
Date: 2016-06-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Cyprus, confectionery product, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2016162EN.01000501.xml










21.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 162/5








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/986
of 13 June 2016
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Γλυκό Τριαντάφυλλο Αγρού (Glyko Triantafyllo Agrou) (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, Cyprus's application to register the name ‘Γλυκό Τριαντάφυλλο Αγρού’ (Glyko Triantafyllo Agrou) 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 ‘Γλυκό Τριαντάφυλλο Αγρού’ (Glyko Triantafyllo Agrou) should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Γλυκό Τριαντάφυλλο Αγρού’ (Glyko Triantafyllo Agrou) (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, 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, 13 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 52, 11.2.2016, p. 19.

(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-329/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Council of State) (France) lodged on 13 June 2016 — Syndicat national de l’industrie des technologies médicales (SNITEM) and Philips France v Premier ministre and Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé
Date: 2016-06-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, medical device, national law, pharmaceutical product, public health, software








C_2016296EN.01002202.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Council of State) (France) lodged on 13 June 2016 — Syndicat national de l’industrie des technologies médicales (SNITEM) and Philips France v Premier ministre and Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé
(Case C-329/16)
(2016/C 296/30)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Syndicat national de l’industrie des technologies médicales (SNITEM) and Philips France

Defendants: Premier ministre and Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

Question referred

Must [Council] Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 [concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1)] be interpreted as meaning that software, the purpose of which is to offer to prescribers practising in towns, a health establishment or a medico-social establishment support for determining a drug prescription, in order to improve the safety of prescription, facilitate the work of the prescriber, encourage conformity of the prescription with national regulatory requirements and reduce the cost of treatment at the same quality, constitutes a medical device within the meaning of that directive, where that software has at least one function that permits the use of data specific to a patient to help his doctor issue his prescription, in particular by detecting contraindications, drug interactions and excessive doses, even though it does not itself act in or on the human body?
Case T-301/16: Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Jindal Saw et Jindal Saw Italia v Commission
Date: 2016-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, cast-iron, import (EU), originating product, piping, tube








C_2016314EN.01002501.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/25





Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Jindal Saw et Jindal Saw Italia v Commission
(Case T-301/16)
(2016/C 314/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India) and Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/388 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India, in so far as it relates to the Applicants; and










—


order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that by means of the determination of the export prices, the Commission infringed Articles 2(8), 2(9), 3(2), 3(3), 3(6) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that by means of its price effects, injury and causation determinations, the Commission infringed Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 3(7), 3(8), 4(1), 5(4) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the failure to disclose essential facts and considerations and to grant sufficient time to submit comments infringed Articles 20(4) and 20(5) of Council Regulation No 1225/2009.
Case T-732/15 R II: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 June 2016 — ICA Laboratories and Others v Commission (Application for interim measures — Environment — Consumer protection — Regulation fixing maximum residue levels for guazatine — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — New application — No new facts — No urgency)
Date: 2016-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: citrus fruit, consumer protection, food contamination, food inspection, food safety, foodstuff, pesticide, pesticide residue








C_2016314EN.01002401.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/24





Order of the President of the General Court of 13 June 2016 — ICA Laboratories and Others v Commission
(Case T-732/15 R II)
((Application for interim measures - Environment - Consumer protection - Regulation fixing maximum residue levels for guazatine - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - New application - No new facts - No urgency))
(2016/C 314/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: ICA Laboratories Close Corp. (Century City, South Africa); ICA International Chemicals (Proprietary) Ltd (Century City); ICA Developments (Proprietary) Ltd (Century City) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Crespi and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, pursuant to Article 160 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, for suspension of the operation of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1910 of 21 October 2015 amending Annexes III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for guazatine in or on certain products (OJ 2015 L 280, p. 2).

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-308/16: Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Marsh v EUIPO (ClaimsExcellence)
Date: 2016-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, insurance, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016287EN.01002701.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/27





Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Marsh v EUIPO (ClaimsExcellence)
(Case T-308/16)
(2016/C 287/33)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Marsh GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ClaimsExcellence’ — Application No 13 847 462

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2016 in Case R 2358/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


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





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.