do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-223/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — combit Software GmbH v Commit Business Solutions Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — European Union trade mark — Unitary character — Finding of a likelihood of confusion in respect of only part of the European Union — Territorial scope of the prohibition referred to in Article 102 of that regulation)
Date: 2016-09-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016419EN.01001902.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/19





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — combit Software GmbH v Commit Business Solutions Ltd
(Case C-223/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - European Union trade mark - Unitary character - Finding of a likelihood of confusion in respect of only part of the European Union - Territorial scope of the prohibition referred to in Article 102 of that regulation))
(2016/C 419/24)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: combit Software GmbH

Defendant: Commit Business Solutions Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2), Article 9(1)(b) and Article 102(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, where an EU trade mark court finds that the use of a sign creates a likelihood of confusion with an EU trade mark in one part of the European Union whilst not creating such a likelihood in another part thereof, that court must conclude that there is an infringement of the exclusive right conferred by that trade mark and issue an order prohibiting the use in question for the entire area of the European Union with the exception of the part in respect of which there has been found to be no likelihood of confusion.


(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Case T-228/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Grupo de originación y análisis v EUIPO — Bankinter (BK PARTNERS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BK PARTNERS — Earlier national word and figurative mark bk. — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, financial services, insurance, real estate business, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016410EN.01001401.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/14





Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Grupo de originación y análisis v EUIPO — Bankinter (BK PARTNERS)
(Case T-228/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BK PARTNERS - Earlier national word and figurative mark bk. - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 410/17)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Grupo de originacion y análisis, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Burgueño Minguela and H. Pequerul Palenciano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: B. Uriarte Valiente and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bankinter, SA (Madrid) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2015 (Case R 1329/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bankinter and Grupo de originación y análisis.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Grupo de originación y análisis, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.
Case T-675/16: Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Wirecard v EUIPO (mycard2go)
Date: 2016-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic money, insurance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016410EN.01002801.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/28





Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Wirecard v EUIPO (mycard2go)
(Case T-675/16)
(2016/C 410/39)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Wirecard AG (Aschheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Bayer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO


Mark at issue: EU trade mark ‘mycard2go’ — Application No 14 303 416

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 in Case R 282/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the defendant for continuation of the registration procedure concerning EU trade mark No 014303416;










—


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





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8101 — Siemens/Valeo/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-09-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical equipment, electronic component, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2016347EN.01000201.xml










22.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8101 — Siemens/Valeo/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 347/02)
On 14 September 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 32016M8101. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-685/16: Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Carlos Javier Jiménez Gasalla v EUIPO (B2B SOLUTIONS)
Date: 2016-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, computer equipment, consultancy, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2016410EN.01003002.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/30





Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Carlos Javier Jiménez Gasalla v EUIPO (B2B SOLUTIONS)
(Case T-685/16)
(2016/C 410/43)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Carlos Javier Jiménez Gasalla (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘B2B SOLUTIONS’ — Application for registration No 14 016 224

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2016 in Case R 244/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2016;










—


annul EUIPO’s decision at first instance dated 9 December 2015 by which the reference mark was refused in its entirety;










—


amend the earlier decisions allowing the grant of the trade mark of the applicant;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the appeal proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8203 — Blackstone/New Mountain/JDA Software) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-09-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, software








C_2016347EN.01003601.xml










22.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/36





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8203 — Blackstone/New Mountain/JDA Software)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 347/08)






1.


On 15 September 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings The Blackstone Group, L.P. (‘Blackstone’, United States) and New Mountain Capital, L.L.C. (‘New Mountain Capital’, United States) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of the undertaking RedPrairie Holding, Inc. (‘RedPrairie’, United States), which owns JDA Software Group, Inc. (‘JDA Software Group’), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   Blackstone: global alternative asset manager that controls the following providers of application software: RGIS; Ipreo; CMS Info Systems Ltd; and Change Healthcare;
—   New Mountain Capital: private equity firm;
—   JDA Software Group: global provider of end-to-end, integrated retail, omni-channel, and supply chain planning and execution enterprise application software solutions.










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 the 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.8203 — Blackstone/New Mountain/JDA Software, 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.
Case T-237/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Łabowicz v EUIPO — Pure Fishing (NANO) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark NANO — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, fishing industry, recreational fishing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016410EN.01001402.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/14





Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Łabowicz v EUIPO — Pure Fishing (NANO)
(Case T-237/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark NANO - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 410/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Edward Łabowicz (Kłodzko, Poland) (represented by: M. Żygadło, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pure Fishing, Inc. (Spirit Lake, Iowa, United States) (represented by: J. Dickerson, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2015 (Case R 2426/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Pure Fishing and Mr Łabowicz

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Edward Łabowicz to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
Case T-684/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Weissenfels v Parliament (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Non-contractual liability — Impartiality on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal — Personal data)
Date: 2016-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, fundamental rights, indemnification, personal data








C_2016410EN.01001902.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/19





Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Weissenfels v Parliament
(Case T-684/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Non-contractual liability - Impartiality on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal - Personal data))
(2016/C 410/26)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Roderich Weissenfels (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by G. Maximini, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele and S. Seyr, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2015 in Weissenfels v Parliament (F-92/14, EU:F:2015:110), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Roderich Weissenfels to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
Case T-435/14: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Tose’e Ta’avon Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Plea of illegality — Conferral of an implementing power on the Council — Criterion directed at the entities providing support to the Iranian Government — Error of law — Error of fact — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Fundamental rights)
Date: 2016-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, bank, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation, principle of proportionality, trade restriction








C_2016410EN.01001101.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/11





Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Tose’e Ta’avon Bank v Council
(Case T-435/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Plea of illegality - Conferral of an implementing power on the Council - Criterion directed at the entities providing support to the Iranian Government - Error of law - Error of fact - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Fundamental rights))
(2016/C 410/13)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Tose’e Ta’avon Bank (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union to maintain the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and on the list in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), as set out in a notice of 15 March 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Tose’e Ta’avon Bank to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
Case T-750/15: Order of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft and Others v Commission (Actions for annulment — State aid — Renewable energy — Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German Law concerning renewable energy sources (EEG 2014) — Aid supporting electricity from renewable sources and reduced EEG surcharge for energy-intensive users — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy law, financial aid, renewable energy, renewable resources








C_2016410EN.01002001.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/20





Order of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft and Others v Commission
(Case T-750/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - State aid - Renewable energy - Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German Law concerning renewable energy sources (EEG 2014) - Aid supporting electricity from renewable sources and reduced EEG surcharge for energy-intensive users - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 410/27)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH (Zeitz, Germany), RWE Power AG (Essen, Germany) and Vattenfall Europe Mining AG (Cottbus, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein, K. Dingemann and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Hermann and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5081 final of 23 July 2014 concerning State aid scheme SA. 38632 (2014/N) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany (EEG 2014 — Reform of the Renewable Energy Law).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH, RWE Power AG and Vattenfall Europe Mining AG shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
Case C-525/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of goods — Article 34 TFEU — Quantitative restrictions on imports — Measures having equivalent effect — Precious metals hallmarked in a third country in accordance with Netherlands legislation — Import into the Czech Republic after being put into free circulation — Refusal to recognise the hallmark — Consumer protection — Proportionality — Admissibility)
Date: 2016-09-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, consumer protection, free circulation, free movement of goods, import, import restriction, national law, precious metal, quantitative restriction, third country








C_2016419EN.01000701.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/7





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — European Commission v Czech Republic
(Case C-525/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of goods - Article 34 TFEU - Quantitative restrictions on imports - Measures having equivalent effect - Precious metals hallmarked in a third country in accordance with Netherlands legislation - Import into the Czech Republic after being put into free circulation - Refusal to recognise the hallmark - Consumer protection - Proportionality - Admissibility))
(2016/C 419/08)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, E. Manhaeve and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller, J. Vláčil and J. Očková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and R. Coesme, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by refusing to recognise the hallmarks of the WaarborgHolland assay office, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34 TFEU;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission, the Czech Republic and the French Republic to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
Case T-674/16: Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Seigneur v ECB
Date: 2016-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, equal treatment, pay rise, principle of legal certainty, promotion








C_2016419EN.01005301.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/53





Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Seigneur v ECB
(Case T-674/16)
(2016/C 419/70)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Olivier Seigneur (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Vandenbussche and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible and well founded;




accordingly:






—


annul the decision of the Chief Service Officer (CSO), adopted on 29 February 2016 under the authority of the management board and notified to staff on 11 March 2016, to exclude the applicant from the additional salary increase (ASI) exercise for the year 2016;










—


annul the decision rejecting the special appeal dated 5 July 2016 and received on 13 July 2016;










—


order the payment of compensation for the non-material damage sustained by the applicant consisting in the loss of a chance of obtaining an ASI in 2016 evaluated at EUR 52 920;










—


order the payment of compensation for non-material damage assessed on an ex aequo et bono basis at EUR 15 000;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





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 infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, Articles 12 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 51 of the conditions of employment of ECB staff, the right to career and promotion prospects as well as the principle of legal certainty.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the inability of the Chief Services Officer to decide not to follow the procedure set out in Circular No 1/2011 of 14 February 2011 concerning additional salary increases in respect of the applicant.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging lack of consultation of the Staff Committee.