do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-371/16 P: Appeal brought on 4 July 2016 by L'Oréal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2016 in Case T-144/15: L'Oréal v EUIPO — THERALAB (VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA)
Date: 2016-07-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017095EN.01000202.xml










27.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/2





Appeal brought on 4 July 2016 by L'Oréal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2016 in Case T-144/15: L'Oréal v EUIPO — THERALAB (VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA)
(Case C-371/16 P)
(2017/C 095/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: L'Oréal SA (represented by: J. P. Mioludo, advogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
By order of 8 December 2016 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case C-365/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 4 July 2016 — Association française des entreprises privées (AFEP) and Others v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics
Date: 2016-07-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, basis of tax assessment, corporation tax, national law, parent company, subsidiary, tax law, tax relief








C_2016335EN.01003901.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/39





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 4 July 2016 — Association française des entreprises privées (AFEP) and Others v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics
(Case C-365/16)
(2016/C 335/53)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’Etat

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Association française des entreprises privées (AFEP), Axa, Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin, Danone, ENGIE, formerly GDF Suez, Eutelsat Communications, LVMH Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton SA, Orange SA, Sanofi SA, Suez Environnement Company, Technip, Total SA, Vivendi, Eurazeo, Safran, Scor SE, Unibail-Rodamco SE, Zodiac Aerospace

Defendant: Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 4 of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011, (1) and in particular paragraph 1(a) thereof, preclude a levy such as that provided for in Article 235ter ZCA of the General Tax Code, which is payable on the distribution of profits by parent companies that are liable to corporation tax in France and is assessed on the basis of the sums distributed?










2.


In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, is a levy such as that provided for in Article 235ter ZCA of the General Tax Code to be regarded as a ‘withholding tax’ from which, pursuant to Article 5 of the directive, profits distributed by a subsidiary must be exempt?






(1)  Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 2011 L 345, p. 8).
Case C-370/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Novara (Italy) lodged on 4 July 2016 — Bruno Dell’Acqua v Eurocom Srl, Regione Lombardia
Date: 2016-07-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Protocol (EU), judicial proceedings, payment, seizure of goods








C_2016383EN.01000201.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Novara (Italy) lodged on 4 July 2016 — Bruno Dell’Acqua v Eurocom Srl, Regione Lombardia
(Case C-370/16)
(2016/C 383/02)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Novara

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bruno Dell’Acqua

Defendants: Eurocom Srl, Regione Lombardia

Question referred

‘Is prior authorisation in accordance with the [last] sentence of Article 1 of the “Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union” (Official Journal of the European Union C 310/261 of 16.12. 2004) necessary or not, when in attachment proceedings against a third party the sums to be attached are no longer held by the payer, the [European] Commission, but have already been transferred to the national paying agencies?’
Case T-359/16: Action brought on 4 July 2016 — Axel Springer v EUIPO — Stiftung Warentest (TestBild)
Date: 2016-07-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, audiovisual programme, broadcasting, information technology industry, registered trade mark, television, trade-mark law








C_2016296EN.01004201.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/42





Action brought on 4 July 2016 — Axel Springer v EUIPO — Stiftung Warentest (TestBild)
(Case T-359/16)
(2016/C 296/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Axel Springer SE (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and G. Müllejans)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stiftung Warentest (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘TestBild’ — Application for registration No 4 555 579

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2016 in Case R 555/2015-4

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 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-349/13: Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2016 — Orange Business Belgium v Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of ‘Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations — new generation (TESTA-ng)’ — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Award of the contract — Transparency — Equal treatment — Non-discrimination — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2016-07-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, invitation to tender, provision of services, services contract, telematics, trans-European network, transparency in decision-making








C_2016305EN.01002401.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/24





Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2016 — Orange Business Belgium v Commission
(Case T-349/13) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of ‘Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations - new generation (TESTA-ng)’ - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract - Transparency - Equal treatment - Non-discrimination - Obligation to state reasons))
(2016/C 305/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Orange Business Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Schutyser and T. Villé, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, S. Lejeune and F. Moro, acting as Agents, and by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 April 2013 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the restricted call for tenders DIGIT/R2/PR/2011/039 ‘Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations — new generation (TESTA-ng)’, and awarding the contract to another tenderer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Orange Business Belgium SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.
Case T-356/16: Action brought on 4 July 2016 — Brita v EUIPO — Aquis Wasser-Luft-Systeme (maxima)
Date: 2016-07-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic equipment, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016305EN.01005001.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/50





Action brought on 4 July 2016 — Brita v EUIPO — Aquis Wasser-Luft-Systeme (maxima)
(Case T-356/16)
(2016/C 305/67)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Brita GmbH (Taunusstein, Germany) (represented by: S. Maaßen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aquis Wasser-Luft-Systeme GmbH (Rebstein, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration No 1 128 639 designating the European Union

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2016 in Case R 99/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of 11 November 2014 and alter them to the effect that the opposition is granted and the extension of international registration IR 1128639 ‘MAXIMA’ to the field of EU trade marks is denied;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the action and the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-361/16: Action brought on 4 July 2016 — TBWA\London v EUIPO (MEDIA ARTS LAB)
Date: 2016-07-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet, advertising, audiovisual industry, data transmission, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2016314EN.01003102.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/31





Action brought on 4 July 2016 — TBWA\London v EUIPO (MEDIA ARTS LAB)
(Case T-361/16)
(2016/C 314/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: TBWA\London Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MEDIA ARTS LAB’ — Application for registration No 13 238 308

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2016 in Case R 958/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for was descriptive and lacked distinctive character for those goods and services for which it was held to be descriptive and lacking in distinctive character;










—


allow the EU trade mark application number 13 238 308 to proceed to publication; and










—


order the Office to bear its own costs and pay the Applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law







—


The Office has not taken proper account of the services for which the Application has been made;










—


The Office has not properly considered the mark applied for as a whole. Rather, it has broken the mark down into parts using definitions of MEDIA ARTS and MEDIA LAB and stated that these parts are descriptive. It has not addressed the effect of the mark as a whole;










—


The Office has failed to accept that the mark is considerably more impenetrable than the PIPELINE decision that they rely upon;










—


Despite (and in breach of) the principle of equality of treatment, the Office has not followed its previous practice of accepting marks with the word MEDIA for advertising in combination with other ‘unusual’ locations.