do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Reorganisation measures — Decision on a reorganisation measure in respect of ‘Euroins România Asigurare Reasigurare SA’
Date: 2016-10-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU control, Romania, insurance company, liquidation








C_2016384EN.01001001.xml










18.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 384/10





Reorganisation measures
Decision on a reorganisation measure in respect of ‘Euroins România Asigurare Reasigurare SA’
(2016/C 384/05)
Publication made in accordance with Article 271 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II)






Insurance undertaking


‘Euroins România Asigurare Reasigurare SA’, with its registered office at şos. Bucureşti Nord nr. 10, Global City Business Park, building 023, 4th floor, Voluntari, Ilfov County, J23/2823/2011, 5328123/15.03.1994, RA-010/04.10.2003




Date, entry into force and nature of decision


Decision No 2691 of 15 October 2015 on launching the financial recovery procedure, based on a financial recovery plan, for ‘Euroins România Asigurare Reasigurare SA’, published in Official Gazette of Romania No 775 of 16 October 2015




Competent authorities


‘Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară’ (ASF) (Financial Supervisory Authority), with its head office at Splaiul Independenței nr. 15, Sector 5, Bucharest, Romania




Supervisory authority


‘Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară’ (ASF) [Financial Supervisory Authority], with its head office at Splaiul Independenței nr. 15, Sector 5, Bucharest, Romania




Administrator appointed


—




Applicable law


Romania
Government Emergency Order No 93/2012 on the establishment, organisation and functioning of the Financial Supervisory Authority, approved with amendments by Law No 113/2013, as amended;
Law No 503/2004 on financial recovery, bankruptcy, and voluntary dissolution and winding-up in the insurance business, republished;
Law No 32/2000 on insurance and insurance supervision, as amended.
Case T-776/15: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Meissen Keramik v EUIPO (MEISSEN KERAMIK) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark MEISSEN KERAMIK — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, furniture industry, plumbing equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016441EN.01001901.xml










28.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/19






Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Meissen Keramik v EUIPO (MEISSEN KERAMIK)
(Case T-776/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark MEISSEN KERAMIK - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 441/23)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Meissen Keramik GmbH (Meissen, Germany) (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and M. Bagh, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2015 (Case R 531/2015-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign MEISSEN KERAMIK as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Messen Kermaik GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.
Case T-367/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — August Storck v EUIPO — Chiquita Brands (Fruitfuls) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Fruitfuls — Genuine use — Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016441EN.01001502.xml










28.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/15






Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — August Storck v EUIPO — Chiquita Brands (Fruitfuls)
(Case T-367/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Fruitfuls - Genuine use - Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 441/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Rohr, A.-C. Richter, P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and T. Reher, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: represented initially by A. Poch, and subsequently by G. Schneider and D. Gája and finally by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Chiquita Brands LLC (Charlotte, North Carolina, United States of America) (represented by: L. Bakers, lawyer)

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2014 (Case R 1580/2013-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Chiquita Brands and August Storck.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 March 2014 (Case R 1580/2013-5) in so far as it confirmed the decision of the Cancellation Division declaring the revocation of the contested mark as regards ‘confectionery’ included in Class 30 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
Case T-824/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Eveready Battery Company v EUIPO — Hussain and Others (POWER EDGE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark POWER EDGE — Earlier EU word mark EDGE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 15(1) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, hand tool, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, tinplate and cutlery industry, trade-mark law








C_2016441EN.01001701.xml










28.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/17






Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Eveready Battery Company v EUIPO — Hussain and Others (POWER EDGE)
(Case T-824/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark POWER EDGE - Earlier EU word mark EDGE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 15(1) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 441/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Eveready Battery Company, Inc. (Saint-Louis, Missouri, United States) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Garrido Otaola and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Imran Hussain, Rizwana Hussain, Maariah Hussain, Danyaal Hussain and Zahra Hussain (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2014 (Case R 38/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Eveready Battery Company and the Hussains.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Eveready Battery Company, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
Case T-56/15: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft v EUIPO (BRAUWELT) (EU trade mark — Application for European Union word mark BRAUWELT — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, beer, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016441EN.01001801.xml










28.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/18






Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft v EUIPO (BRAUWELT)
(Case T-56/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for European Union word mark BRAUWELT - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 441/22)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Höfler, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2014 (Case R 1121/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign BRAUWELT as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8185 — Atlantia/EDF/ACA) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-10-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, catering industry, economic concentration, energy industry, merger control








C_2016384EN.01000101.xml










18.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 384/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8185 — Atlantia/EDF/ACA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 384/01)
On 12 October 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 the French 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 32016M8185. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1845 of 18 October 2016 fixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for aid for milk production reduction pursuant to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1612
Date: 2016-10-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, aid to agriculture, common organisation of markets, dairy production, financial aid, production quota, raw milk, regulation of agricultural production








L_2016282EN.01004201.xml










19.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 282/42








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1845
of 18 October 2016
         
fixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for aid for milk production reduction pursuant to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1612


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1),


Having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1612 of 8 September 2016 providing aid for milk production reduction (2), and in particular Article 4(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1612 provides for aid to milk producers committing themselves to reduce their cow milk deliveries for a three month period. That aid is paid on the basis of aid applications. Where the aggregated volume covered by the admissible and plausible aid applications notified exceeds the total maximum volume referred to in Article 1(1) of that Regulation, Member States are to apply an allocation coefficient to the quantity covered by each aid application.












(2)


The quantities covered by the aid applications submitted for the period of, November 2016, December 2016 and January 2017 exceed the total maximum volume. Therefore, an allocation coefficient needs to be fixed.












(3)


For the swift implementation of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1612, this Regulation should enter into force from the day after its publication,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities covered by aid applications for cow milk delivery reduction in November 2016, December 2016 and January 2017 pursuant to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1612 shall be 0,12462762.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 October 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Jerzy PLEWA
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ L 242, 9.9.2016, p. 4.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8200 — Platinum Equity Group/Emerson Network Power Business) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-10-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical engineering, merger control








C_2016384EN.01001801.xml










18.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 384/18





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8200 — Platinum Equity Group/Emerson Network Power Business)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 384/08)






1.


On 11 October 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Platinum Equity Group (‘Platinum’, United States) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Emerson Network Power Business (‘ENP’, United States) by way of a purchase of shares and assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Platinum specializes in the merger, acquisition and operation of companies that provide services and solutions to customers in a broad range of businesses, including information technology, telecommunications, logistics, metal services, manufacturing and distribution.










—


ENP is active in the provision of power, thermal, and infrastructure management products and related services worldwide. Power management products include critical power systems and uninterruptible power systems. Thermal management products provide energy efficient, reliable and cost-effective management of environmental conditions in mission-critical facilities. Infrastructure management and solutions consist of comprehensive data centre infrastructure resource management systems, and involve both software and IT appliances.














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 M.8200 — Platinum Equity Group/Emerson Network Power 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.
Council Decision (EU) 2016/1883 of 18 October 2016 establishing the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organization on the United States' request for a WTO waiver to permit the US to provide preferential treatment to eligible products originating in Nepal
Date: 2016-10-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Nepal, United States, World Trade Organisation, import, originating product, tariff exemption








L_2016289EN.01002001.xml










25.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 289/20








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2016/1883
of 18 October 2016
         
establishing the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organization on the United States' request for a WTO waiver to permit the US to provide preferential treatment to eligible products originating in Nepal


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (‘WTO Agreement’) set out the procedures for waiving an obligation imposed on a Member by the WTO Agreement or any of the Multilateral Trade Agreements.












(2)


Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article IX of the WTO Agreement, the United States submitted a request to waive until 31 December 2025 its obligations under paragraph 1 of Article I and paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article XIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 to the extent necessary to permit the United States to provide preferential treatment to eligible products originating in Nepal imported into the customs territory of the United States.












(3)


The granting of the United States request for a WTO waiver would not affect negatively either the economy of the Union or the trade relations with the beneficiary of the waiver.












(4)


It is appropriate, therefore, to establish the position to be taken on behalf of the Union within the WTO General Council to support the waiver request by the United States,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The position to be taken on behalf of the Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organization shall be to support the United States' request to waive its obligations under paragraph 1 of Article I and paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article XIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 until 31 December 2025 in accordance with the terms of the United States' waiver request.
This position shall be expressed by the Commission.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Luxembourg, 18 October 2016.


For the Council


The President

M. LAJČÁK
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-10-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016384EN.01000301.xml










18.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 384/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

17 October 2016
(2016/C 384/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0994 




JPY


Japanese yen


114,46 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4400 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90485 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7028 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0872 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0315 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,024 




HUF


Hungarian forint


306,93 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3281 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5065 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,4017 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4436 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4433 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5304 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5433 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5270 




KRW


South Korean won


1 253,18 




ZAR


South African rand


15,6533 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4075 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5065 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 355,97 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6367 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,357 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,0709 




THB


Thai baht


38,776 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5147 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,8199 




INR


Indian rupee


73,4565 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-109/16: Order of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Laboratoire de la mer v EUIPO — Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma (RESPIMER) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark RESPIMER — Earlier EU word mark RESPIMAT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2016-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016462EN.01002401.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/24





Order of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Laboratoire de la mer v EUIPO — Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma (RESPIMER)
(Case T-109/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark RESPIMER - Earlier EU word mark RESPIMAT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2016/C 462/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Laboratoire de la mer (Saint-Malo, France) (represented by: S. Szilvasi, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Ingelheim, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 (Case R 3109/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma and Laboratoire de la mer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Laboratoire de la mer to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.