do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-454/16: Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Arrigoni v EUIPO — Arrigoni Formaggi (Arrigoni Valtaleggio)
Date: 2016-08-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, milk product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016364EN.01002701.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/27






Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Arrigoni v EUIPO — Arrigoni Formaggi (Arrigoni Valtaleggio)
(Case T-454/16)
(2016/C 364/30)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Arrigoni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Di Gravio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arrigoni Formaggi SpA (Bergamo, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘Arrigoni Valtaleggio’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 028 737

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 in Case R 2922/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the action and, accordingly, declare the contested decision invalid and/or inexistent on the following grounds, remitting, if appropriate, the case to the decision-making bodies of EUIPO or declaring the first decision No C 406 A of 17 April 2013 valid and final;










—


in any event, declare Arrigoni Battista SpA’s application No 1 028 737 to be invalid in its entirety, on the basis of the following infringements of law.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark;










—


Infringement of the European Constitutional Charter;










—


Infringement of Article II-77 Right to property;










—


Infringement of Articles 76 and 87 of the Constitution;










—


Infringement of Law No 273 of 12 December 2002;










—


Infringement of the Italian Industrial Property Code, Legislative Decree No 30 of 10 February 2005 and subsequent amendments: Article7, Article 12.B, C and G, Article 13(1), Article 16.1, Article 20, Article 22(1) and (2);










—


Such further ruling as may be necessary, including with regard to payment of the costs, made without prejudice to any existing rights.
Case T-438/16: Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Altunis v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI)
Date: 2016-08-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beer, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016343EN.01004802.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/48





Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Altunis v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI)
(Case T-438/16)
(2016/C 343/66)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Altunis-Trading, Gestão e Serviços, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, S. Bergia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hotel Cipriani Srl (Venice, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration of the word mark ‘CIPRIANI’ designating the European Union — International registration No 1 127 870 designating the European Union

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2016 in Case R 1889/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


reject the opposition filed by Hotel Cipriani s.r.l.; or










—


remit the proceedings to EUIPO in order for it to rule in compliance with the judgment to be delivered;










—


order full reimbursement of the costs of the present proceedings, including those of the previous procedural stages before EUIPO, in favour of Altunis.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 15, 42(2) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 23(3) of Regulation No 2868/95 in relation to genuine use of the mark of Hotel Cipriani;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to the assessment of the similarity between goods and services and the resulting assessment of the likelihood of confusion.
Case T-424/16: Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Gifi Diffusion v EUIPO — Crocs (Footwear)
Date: 2016-08-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, footwear industry








C_2016392EN.01004102.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/41





Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Gifi Diffusion v EUIPO — Crocs (Footwear)
(Case T-424/16)
(2016/C 392/54)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Gifi Diffusion (Villeneuve-sur-Lot, France) (represented by: C. de Chassey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Crocs, Inc. (Longmont, Colorado, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design ‘Footwear’ — Community design No 733 282-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2015 in Case R 37/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


invalidate the Community design No 000733282-0001;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the Applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Articles 62 and 63 of Regulation No 6/2002.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-08-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016283EN.01000201.xml










5.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

4 August 2016
(2016/C 283/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1136 




JPY


Japanese yen


112,66 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4383 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84603 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5105 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0834 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4118 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,027 




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,18 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2940 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4605 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3664 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4604 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4536 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6384 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5479 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4952 




KRW


South Korean won


1 241,88 




ZAR


South African rand


15,2998 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3961 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4827 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 649,41 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5057 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,417 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,7722 




THB


Thai baht


38,886 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5894 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,9694 




INR


Indian rupee


74,4740 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8090 — Tencent Holdings Limited/Supercell OY) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-08-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: automatic game, economic concentration, merger control, publishing








C_2016283EN.01000101.xml










5.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8090 — Tencent Holdings Limited/Supercell OY)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 283/01)
On 20 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 language 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 32016M8090. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-439/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 5 August 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev
Date: 2016-08-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Convention on Human Rights, approximation of laws, criminal proceedings, detention before trial, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, offence, rights of the defence








C_2016364EN.01001201.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 5 August 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev
(Case C-439/16)
(2016/C 364/07)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

Emil Milev

Question referred

Is a domestic precedent — in particular a binding Opinion of the Varhoven Sad [(Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation; ‘the Supreme Court’)] (delivered after the adoption of Directive 2016/343 (1) of 9 March 2016 but before the time limit for its transposition has passed), pursuant to which the Varhoven Sad [(Supreme Court)], after having established that there is a conflict between Article 5(4) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [(‘the ECHR’)], read in conjunction with Article 5(1)(c) thereof, and national legislation (Article 270(2) of the [Bulgarian] Criminal Procedure Code (Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks)) relating to the issue of whether to take into consideration the reasonable grounds for assuming that an offence was committed (within the context of a procedure for reviewing the extension of a coercive measure of ‘remand in custody’ during the litigation stage of criminal proceedings), grants to the courts dealing with the substance of the case the power to decide whether to comply with the [ECHR] — consistent with Article 3 of Directive 2016/343 of 9 March 2016 and Article 6 thereof (relating to the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof within the context of criminal proceedings)?


(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).
Case T-440/16: Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Souruh v Council
Date: 2016-08-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2016364EN.01002301.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/23






Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Souruh v Council
(Case T-440/16)
(2016/C 364/23)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;










—


as a consequence, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant raises five pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-411/16, Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council.
Case T-441/16: Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Tetra Pharm (1997) v EUIPO — Sebapharma (SeboCalm)
Date: 2016-08-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016364EN.01002302.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/23






Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Tetra Pharm (1997) v EUIPO — Sebapharma (SeboCalm)
(Case T-441/16)
(2016/C 364/24)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Tetra Pharm (1997) Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel) (represented by: A. Gorzkiewicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sebapharma GmbH & Co. KG (Boppard, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SeboCalm’ — EU trade mark application No 12 014 461

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 in Case R 852/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party before EUIPO to bear the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 7(2), 75 and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-445/16: Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Schniga v CPVO (Gala Schnico)
Date: 2016-08-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: industrial property, pip fruit, plant propagation, plant variety right








C_2016364EN.01002401.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/24






Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Schniga v CPVO (Gala Schnico)
(Case T-445/16)
(2016/C 364/25)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Community plant variety right at issue: Gala Schnico — Community plant variety right application No 2009/1807

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 22 April 2016 in Case A005/2014.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order CPVO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 76, 8, 57(3) and 75 of Regulation No 2100/94.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8138 — Shiseido/Dolce Gabbana’s fragrances, colour cosmetics and skincare business) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-08-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cosmetics industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2016283EN.01000301.xml










5.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8138 — Shiseido/Dolce Gabbana’s fragrances, colour cosmetics and skincare business)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 283/03)






1.


On 25 July 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Beauté Prestige International SA (‘BPI’, France) controlled by Shiseido Co. Ltd (‘Shiseido’, Japan) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the business resulting from the exclusive and worldwide licence for all trademarks associated with Dolce & Gabbana for fragrances, colour cosmetics, and skincare products (‘D&G licence business’, Italy) by way of contract.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for BPI: BPI creates, produces and distributes perfumes and luxury cosmetics for fashion brands. It currently distributes beauty products under several fashion brands, mainly through license agreements,
—   for D&G licence business: D&G licence business is constituted by the business resulting from an exclusive worldwide license for the use of all trademarks and subnomens associated with Dolce & Gabbana for the creation, development, manufacture, sale, distribution, marketing, advertising and promotion of fragrances, colour cosmetics and skincare products of the fragrances, colour cosmetics and skincare products.










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. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










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.8138 — Shiseido/Dolce Gabbana’s fragrances, colour cosmetics and skincare business, 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.