do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of 29 July 2016 in Case E-31/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/77/EU amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights)
Date: 2016-07-29
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, copyright








C_2017108EN.01001401.xml










6.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/14





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 29 July 2016
in Case E-31/15
EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/77/EU amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights)
(2017/C 108/12)
In Case E-31/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at the indent in point 9f of Annex XVII to the Agreement of the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights) as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 29 July 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at the indent in point 9f of Annex XVII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.










2.


Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Judgment of the Court of 29 July 2016 in Case E-25/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — State aid — Article 14(3) of Part II of Protocol 3 SCA — Failure to recover unlawfully granted aid)
Date: 2016-07-29
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, State aid, control of State aid, investment promotion, regional aid, reimbursement of aid








C_2017108EN.01001201.xml










6.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/12





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 29 July 2016
in Case E-25/15
EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — State aid — Article 14(3) of Part II of Protocol 3 SCA — Failure to recover unlawfully granted aid)
(2017/C 108/10)
In Case E-25/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to take within the prescribed time all the necessary measures to recover from the recipients the State aid declared incompatible with the functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 404/14/COL of 8 October 2014on the Investment Incentive Scheme in Iceland; by failing to cancel, within the prescribed time any outstanding payments referred to in Article 7 third sentence of that decision; and by failing to provide the EFTA Surveillance Authority, within the prescribed time, with the information outlined in Article 8 of that decision, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(3) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, and under Articles 6, 7 and 8 of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 404/14/COL, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 29 July 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(3) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, and Articles 6, 7 and 8 of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 404/14/COL of 8 October 2014 on the Investment Incentive Scheme in Iceland, by failing, within the time limits prescribed, to take all the necessary measures to recover from the recipients the State aid declared incompatible with the functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by Articles 3, 4 and 5 of that decision, to cancel any outstanding payments referred to in Article 7 third sentence of that decision, and to provide the EFTA Surveillance Authority with the information outlined in Article 8 of that decision.










2.


Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Case T-421/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Oma)
Date: 2016-07-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, gift item, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016343EN.01004501.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/45





Action brought on 29 July 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Oma)
(Case T-421/16)
(2016/C 343/60)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Beste Oma’ — Application No 14 169 478

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2016 in Case R 91/2016-4

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.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-427/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL WIFE)
Date: 2016-07-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016343EN.01004602.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/46





Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL WIFE)
(Case T-427/16)
(2016/C 343/63)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Isabel Martín Osete (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Daniella Rey (Toulouse, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AN IDEAL WIFE’ — EU trade mark No 5 276 894

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2016 in Case R 1528/2015-2

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 55(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-434/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Sensi Vigne & Vini v EUIPO — El Grifo (CONTADO DEL GRIFO)
Date: 2016-07-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016350EN.01002401.xml










26.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/24





Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Sensi Vigne & Vini v EUIPO — El Grifo (CONTADO DEL GRIFO)
(Case T-434/16)
(2016/C 350/30)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Sensi Vigne & Vini Srl (Lamporecchio, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Grifo, SA (San Bartolomé de Lanzarote, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CONTADO DEL GRIFO’ — Application for registration No 12 097 416

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2016 in Case R 2218/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside EUIPO’s decision of 25 May 2016 in its entirety;










—


uphold the present action, ruling on the substance of the case in favour of registration of EU Trade Mark No 12 097 416, filed on 28 August 2013 in Class 33;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of those before EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-405/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — The Regents of the University of California v CPVO — Nador Cott Protection and CVVP (Tang Gold)
Date: 2016-07-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: citrus fruit, plant breeding, plant variety right








C_2017014EN.01003601.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/36






Action brought on 29 July 2016 — The Regents of the University of California v CPVO — Nador Cott Protection and CVVP (Tang Gold)
(Case T-405/16)
(2017/C 014/44)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: The Regents of the University of California (Riverside, California, United States of America) (represented by: J. Muñoz-Delgado Mérida, S. Poza Martínez, M. Esteve Sanz y J. Lissen Arbeloa, abogados)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nador Cott Protection SARL (Saint-Raphaël, France) and Club de Variedades Vegetales Protegidas (Valencia, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO


Proprietor of the plant variety right at issue: Applicant

Community Plant variety right at issue: Community Plant Variety Right No EU 38924, variety denomination: Tang Gold, species: Citrus reticulata Bianco

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 29 April 2016 in Case A006/2014

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Confer on the variety Nadorcott, with regard to characteristic No 68 of Protocol CPVO-TP 201/2, the level of expression ‘very high’ with a mark of 9 or, in the alternative, the level of expression ‘high’ with a mark of 7, entering that classification on the Report on the Differences with Similar Varieties, which form part of the official description of the variety Tang Gold;










—


Recognise the existence of manifest differences between the varieties Tang Gold and Nardocott as regards characteristics Nos 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 37, 50, 60 and 65 of Protocol CPVO-TP 201/2, by making a declaration to that effect and granting the amendment of the Report on the Differences with Similar Varieties, which forms part of the official description of the variety Tang Gold, in such a way as to include those differences in the report.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 57, 62, 67, 75 and 81 of Regulation No 2100/94.










—


Infringement of Article 49 of Regulation No 874/09.










—


Misinterpretation of the Report of the IVIA entitled ‘Extent of the reduction of the seed content through induced mutagenesis’.










—


Characteristic No 68 does not depend on environmental conditions.










—


The data provided by UCR on the number of seeds contained in the Nadorcott variety is comparable.
Case T-422/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Mama)
Date: 2016-07-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, gift item, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016343EN.01004502.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/45





Action brought on 29 July 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Mama)
(Case T-422/16)
(2016/C 343/61)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Beste Mama’ — Application No 14 169 304

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2016 in Case R 95/2016-4

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.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-428/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL LOVER)
Date: 2016-07-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016343EN.01004701.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/47





Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL LOVER)
(Case T-428/16)
(2016/C 343/64)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Isabel Martín Osete (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Daniella Rey (Toulouse, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AN IDEAL LOVER’ — EU trade mark No 5 261 599

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2016 in Case R 1527/2015-2

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 55(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-418/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Galletas Gullon v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (shape of a package)
Date: 2016-07-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016343EN.01004302.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/43





Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Galletas Gullon v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (shape of a package)
(Case T-418/16)
(2016/C 343/58)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Galletas Gullon, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: O2 Holdings Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: tridimensional mark (shape of a package) — EU trade mark No 3 417 847

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 in Case R 1614/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.