do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8051 — CVC/Tipico Group) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, gaming, merger control, provision of services








C_2016266EN.01000202.xml










22.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 266/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8051 — CVC/Tipico Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 266/03)
On 18 July 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 32016M8051. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016266EN.01000301.xml










22.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 266/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

21 July 2016
(2016/C 266/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1015 




JPY


Japanese yen


117,05 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4390 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83595 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4736 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0872 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3541 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,025 




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,61 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3692 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4686 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3841 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4710 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4376 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5426 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5789 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4931 




KRW


South Korean won


1 253,58 




ZAR


South African rand


15,7433 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3505 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4845 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 448,38 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4860 




PHP


Philippine peso


51,975 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,3897 




THB


Thai baht


38,564 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5804 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,5428 




INR


Indian rupee


74,0373 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-389/16: Action brought on 22 July 2016 — AIA v EUIPO — Casa Montorsi (MONTORSI F. & F.)
Date: 2016-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dried product, fats, foodstuff, meat product, milk product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016335EN.01004901.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/49





Action brought on 22 July 2016 — AIA v EUIPO — Casa Montorsi (MONTORSI F. & F.)
(Case T-389/16)
(2016/C 335/65)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Agricola italiana alimentare SpA (AIA) (San Martino Buon Albergo, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Casa Montorsi Srl (Vignola, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘MONTORSI F. & F.’ — EU trade mark No 5 681 663

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 1239/2014-1

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 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b), of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 53(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-390/16: Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Grupo Osborne v EUIPO — Ostermann (DONTORO dog friendship)
Date: 2016-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, domestic animal, leather, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2016364EN.01001501.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/15






Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Grupo Osborne v EUIPO — Ostermann (DONTORO dog friendship)
(Case T-390/16)
(2016/C 364/11)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain) (represented by: J. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Daniel Ostermann (Leipzig, Germany)

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: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘DONTORO dog friendship’ — EU trade mark application No 11 112 381

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 2002/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision granting the European Union Trademark No 11 112 381‘DONTORO dog friendship’ (fig.) in Cls. 18, 20 and 35;










—


refuse the registration of the European Union Trademark No 11 112 381‘DONTORO dog friendship’ (fig.) in Cl. 35 in the ‘wholesale and retail sale services also through the Internet, garments, shoes and textile products’ and therefore refuse its registration in Classes 25 and 35 in the mentioned services;










—


order to whoever opposes this appeal to pay the court’s costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-409/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 22 July 2016 — Ypourgos Esoterikon, Ypourgos Paideias kai Thriskevmaton v Maria-Eleni Kalliri
Date: 2016-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, gender equality, job access, police, sexual discrimination, vocational training








C_2016392EN.01000602.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 22 July 2016 — Ypourgos Esoterikon, Ypourgos Paideias kai Thriskevmaton v Maria-Eleni Kalliri
(Case C-409/16)
(2016/C 392/08)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece)

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Ypourgos Esoterikon, Ypourgos Paideias kai Thriskevmaton

Respondent: Maria-Eleni Kalliri

Question referred

Is Article 1(1) of Presidential Decree 90/2003, which amended Article 2(1) of Presidential Decree 4/1995 and provides that civilian candidates for the Officers’ School and the School for Policemen of the Police Academy must, amongst other qualifications, ‘be of a height (in the case of men and women) of at least 1.70 m’, compatible with Directives 76/207/EEC, (1) 2002/73/EC (2) and 2006/54/EC, (3) which prohibit any indirect discrimination on grounds of sex as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, in the public sector (unless that ultimate different treatment is attributable to factors which are objectively justified and are unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex, and does not go beyond what is appropriate and necessary in order to serve the objective pursued by the measure)?


(1)  Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40).

(2)  Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15).

(3)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).
Case T-386/16: Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Falegnameria Universo dei F.lli Priarollo v EUIPO — Zanini Porte (silente PORTE & PORTE)
Date: 2016-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic device, furniture industry, metal furniture, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016383EN.01001501.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/15





Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Falegnameria Universo dei F.lli Priarollo v EUIPO — Zanini Porte (silente PORTE & PORTE)
(Case T-386/16)
(2016/C 383/21)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Falegnameria Universo dei F.lli Priarollo Snc (Caerano di San Marco, Italy) (represented by: B. Osti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zanini Porte (Corbiolo di Bosco Chiesanuova, Italy)

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 ‘silente PORTE & PORTE’ — European Union trade mark No 4 191 425

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 240/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


as a preliminary point, ascertain that the Board of Appeal went beyond what had been sought and, in consequence, refer the decision back to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO for infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009, taking into account Article 1(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 216/96 of 5 February 1996, as amended, concerning the referral of a case to a Board of Appeal that has not already heard the case;










—


on the merits, alter the contested decision and, consequently, order EUIPO to pay the fees and costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal because the decision is unfounded in fact and in law, and at all events to pay the costs, on an equitable basis;










—


by way of measure of inquiry, order production of the files relating to proceedings No 000008977 C before the Cancellation Division of EUIPO and resulting Case No R0240/2015.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Rule 37(b)(1) and of Rule 50 of Regulation No 2868/95.
Case C-410/16 P: Appeal brought on 22 July 2016 by Syndial SpA — Attività Diversificate against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 May 2016 in Case T-581/15, Syndial SpA v European Commission
Date: 2016-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, Liguria, access to EU information, polluted area, provision of documents, right to justice








C_2017095EN.01000302.xml










27.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/3





Appeal brought on 22 July 2016 by Syndial SpA — Attività Diversificate against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 May 2016 in Case T-581/15, Syndial SpA v European Commission
(Case C-410/16 P)
(2017/C 095/06)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Syndial SpA (represented by: L. Acquarone and S. Grassi, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 9 February 2017, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Syndial SpA — Attività Diversificate to bear its own costs.
Case T-395/16: Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Windfinder R&L v EUIPO (Windfinder)
Date: 2016-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, information service, meteorology, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2016343EN.01004102.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/41





Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Windfinder R&L v EUIPO (Windfinder)
(Case T-395/16)
(2016/C 343/55)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Windfinder R&L GmbH & Co. KG (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: B. Schneider, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO


Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Windfinder’ — Application No 13 350 467

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2016 in Case R 1206/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


amend the contested decision to the extent that EU trade mark application No 13 350 467 is registered as applied for;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8076 — Warburg Pincus/Wendel/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, security services








C_2016266EN.01000201.xml










22.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 266/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8076 — Warburg Pincus/Wendel/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 266/02)
On 15 July 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 32016M8076. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-406/16: Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Dogg Label v EUIPO — Chemoul (JAPRAG)
Date: 2016-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016364EN.01001701.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/17






Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Dogg Label v EUIPO — Chemoul (JAPRAG)
(Case T-406/16)
(2016/C 364/14)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Dogg Label (Marseille, France) (represented by: M. Angelier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party before the Board of Appeal: Patrick Chemoul (Paris, France)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO


Proprietor of the mark at issue: the other party before the Board of Appeal

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘JAPRAG’ — EU trade mark No 8 820 301

Proceedings before EUIPO: invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2016 in Case R 2336/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the contested decision;










—


order the European Union Intellectual Property Office to assent to the action for annulment brought by the company DOGG LABEL;










—


declare invalid the Community trade mark ‘JAPRAG’ No 8 820 301 for all the goods in Classes 18 and 25, on the basis of Article 53(1)(a) of the EU trade mark regulation in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-402/16: Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinGas)
Date: 2016-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, energy distribution, gas supply, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016335EN.01005101.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/51





Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinGas)
(Case T-402/16)
(2016/C 335/67)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Berliner Stadtwerke GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO


Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘berlinGas’ — application No 14 067 714

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2016 in Case R 291/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009.