do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-14/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten v EUIPO — Mareea Comtur (airpass.ro) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark airpass.ro — Earlier EU word mark AirPlus International — Opposition dismissed — Rule 21 of Regulation (EC) No 2865/95 — No need to adjudicate — Article 81(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-10-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, air transport, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016454EN.01002202.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/22






Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten v EUIPO — Mareea Comtur (airpass.ro)
(Case T-14/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark airpass.ro - Earlier EU word mark AirPlus International - Opposition dismissed - Rule 21 of Regulation (EC) No 2865/95 - No need to adjudicate - Article 81(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 454/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH (Neu Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Melgar and H. Kunz, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: SC Mareea Comtur SRL (Deva, Romania)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 October 2014 (Case R 1918/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten and SC Mareea Comtur.

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 17 October 2014 (Case R 1918/2013-5) in so far as it concerns ‘advertising; business management; business administration; office functions’ in Class 35 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.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and those incurred by Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH.






(1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.
Case C-169/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Benelux Gerechtshof — BENELUX) — Montis Design BV v Goossens Meubelen BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Industrial and commercial property — Copyright and related rights — Directive 93/98/EEC — Article 10(2) — Term of protection — No revival of protection due to Berne Convention)
Date: 2016-10-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, approximation of laws, copyright, industrial property








C_2016475EN.01000601.xml










19.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 475/6





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Benelux Gerechtshof — BENELUX) — Montis Design BV v Goossens Meubelen BV
(Case C-169/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Industrial and commercial property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 93/98/EEC - Article 10(2) - Term of protection - No revival of protection due to Berne Convention))
(2016/C 475/07)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Benelux Gerechtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Montis Design BV

Defendant: Goossens Meubelen BV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(2) of Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, read together with Article 13(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the terms of protection laid down by that directive do not apply to copyright which was initially protected by national legislation but which was extinguished prior to 1 July 1995.
Directive 93/98 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, initially, had granted, as in the main proceedings, copyright protection to a work, but which, subsequently, caused that copyright to be definitively extinguished, before 1 July 1995, by reason of non-compliance with a formal requirement.


(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
Case T-407/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Hot-Can Intellectual Property (HotoGo self-heating can technology) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark HotoGo self-heating can technology — Earlier EU figurative marks representing claws — Relative grounds for refusal — No similarity of the signs — No likelihood of confusion — No connection between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-10-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016454EN.01002401.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/24






Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Hot-Can Intellectual Property (HotoGo self-heating can technology)
(Case T-407/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark HotoGo self-heating can technology - Earlier EU figurative marks representing claws - Relative grounds for refusal - No similarity of the signs - No likelihood of confusion - No connection between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 454/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and P. Ivanov, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hot-Can Intellectual Property Sdn Bhd (Cheras, Malaysia)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2015 (Case R 1028/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Hot-Can Intellectual Property.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8220 — Euro Garages/EFR) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-10-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor fuel, retail selling








C_2016386EN.01001701.xml










20.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 386/17





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8220 — Euro Garages/EFR)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 386/10)






1.


On 10 October 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Euro Garages Ltd (‘Euro Garages’, United Kingdom) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of EFR Group B.V. (‘EFR’, Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Euro Garages: active in the operaton of petrol stations, convenience stores, car washes and fast food restaurants in the United Kingdom.
—   for EFR: active in the operation of petrol stations, convenience stores, car washes, bakeries and hotels in Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.










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 M.8220 — Euro Garages/EFR, 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-141/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — Czech Republic v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Protection of vineyards — Expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations)
Date: 2016-10-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, viticulture








C_2016454EN.01002301.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/23






Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — Czech Republic v Commission
(Case T-141/15) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Protection of vineyards - Expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations))
(2016/C 454/42)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Očková, J. Vláčil and L. Březinová, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015, L 16, p. 33), in so far as it excludes the expenditure envisaged by the Czech Republic under EAGF for a degree of protection of vineyards for the years 2010 to 2012, coming to a total of EUR 2 123 199,04.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8088 — Midea Group/Kuka) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-10-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air conditioning, automation, economic concentration, electrical engineering, electronics industry, heating, merger control, robotisation








C_2016386EN.01000102.xml










20.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 386/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8088 — Midea Group/Kuka)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 386/02)
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 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 32016M8088. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-736/16: Action brought on 20 October 2016 — Amira and Others v Commission and ECB
Date: 2016-10-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, aid for restructuring, claim, composition, damages, equal treatment, free movement of capital, ownership, public debt








C_2016475EN.01002101.xml










19.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 475/21





Action brought on 20 October 2016 — Amira and Others v Commission and ECB
(Case T-736/16)
(2016/C 475/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Maria Amira (Athens, Greece) and 15 other applicants (represented by S. Pappas and I. Ioannidis, lawyers)

Defendants: European Central Bank, European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


order the European Union and/or the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) to compensate for the amounts described in the application corresponding to the damage that the applicants suffered from their illegal participation in the restructuring of the Greek government debt, due to the activation of the retrofit Collective Action Clauses;










—


alternatively, order the Union and/or the European Central Bank (ECB) to compensate the applicants for the amounts described in the application corresponding to the damage suffered from the illegal exclusion of Greece’s official sector creditors from the restructuring of the Greek government debt;










—


in any case, order the ECB to compensate the applicants for the damages described in the application for each applicant emanating from the illegal exclusion of the ESCB from the restructuring of the Greek government debt;










—


order the ECB and/or the Union to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Union’s and/or the ECB’s and the ESCB’s actions were taken ultra vires and contrary to Articles 120-126, 127 and 352(1) TFEU.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB’s and the ESCB’s actions regarding in particular the ESCB’s exclusion from the restructuring violate Article 123 TFEU.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Union’s and/or the ECB’s and the ESCB’s actions violate the applicants’ right to property protected under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Union’s and/or the ECB’s and the ESCB’s actions violate free movement of capital protected under Article 63 TFEU.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Union’s and/or the ECB’s and the ESCB’s actions violate the applicants’ right to equal treatment protected under Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Case T-672/14: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — August Wolff and Remedia v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC — Article 116 of Directive 2001/83 — Active substance estradiol — Commission decision ordering the Member States to withdraw or amend national marketing authorisations for medicinal products with 0,01 % estradiol by weight for topical use — Burden of proof — Proportionality — Equal treatment)
Date: 2016-10-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Member State, drug surveillance, equal treatment, hormone, market approval, medicinal product, principle of proportionality








C_2016454EN.01002201.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/22






Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — August Wolff and Remedia v Commission
(Case T-672/14) (1)

((Medicinal products for human use - Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 116 of Directive 2001/83 - Active substance estradiol - Commission decision ordering the Member States to withdraw or amend national marketing authorisations for medicinal products with 0,01 % estradiol by weight for topical use - Burden of proof - Proportionality - Equal treatment))
(2016/C 454/40)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany) and Remedia d.o.o (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: P. Klappich, C. Schmidt and P. Arbeiter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6030 final of 19 August 2014 concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations for high concentration of estradiol containing human medicinal products for topical use in so far as it requires Member States to comply with the obligations imposed in the implementing decision for the medicinal products listed in Annex I to the implementing decision and those not listed with 0,01 % estradiol by weight for topical use, with the exception of the restriction that the medicinal products named in Annex I to the implementing decision with 0,01 % estradiol by weight for topical use may be administered only intravaginally.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel and Remedia d.o.o. to pay the costs of the proceedings and of those relating to the application for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.
State aid — Decision to raise no objections
Date: 2016-10-20
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, crew, maritime transport, social security, tax rebate








C_2016386EN.01001301.xml










20.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 386/13





State aid — Decision to raise no objections
(2016/C 386/08)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:








Date of adoption of the decision



:


27 April 2016





Case number



:


78783





Decision No



:


085/16/COL





EFTA State



:


Norway





Title



:


Tax refund scheme for employing seafarers





Legal basis



:


Regulation 2016-02-26-204 on refunds for employing seafarers





Type of measure



:


Scheme





Objective



:


Maritime transport





Form of aid



:


Tax and social security refunds





Budget



:


For March-December 2016, NOK 1 892 million. In the following years the scheme will be applicable for the full 12 months of the year.





Duration



:


10 years from 1 March 2016 to 28 February 2026





Economic sectors



:


Maritime transport





Name and address of the granting authority



:







Norwegian Maritime Authority




PO Box 2222




N-5509 Haugesund




NORWAY








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8020 — Sherwin-Williams/Valspar) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-10-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, paints and varnishes








C_2016386EN.01000101.xml










20.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 386/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8020 — Sherwin-Williams/Valspar)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 386/01)
On 10 August 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 32016M8020. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-24/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Josef Plöckl v Finanzamt Schrobenhausen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Sixth Directive — Article 28c(A)(a) and (d) — Transfer of goods within the European Union — Right to an exemption — Failure to comply with an obligation to provide a VAT identification number issued by the Member State of destination — No specific evidence of tax evasion — Refusal to grant the exemption — Whether permissible)
Date: 2016-10-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, carriage of goods, intra-EU transport, tax evasion, tax exemption








C_2016475EN.01000302.xml










19.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 475/3





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Josef Plöckl v Finanzamt Schrobenhausen
(Case C-24/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Sixth Directive - Article 28c(A)(a) and (d) - Transfer of goods within the European Union - Right to an exemption - Failure to comply with an obligation to provide a VAT identification number issued by the Member State of destination - No specific evidence of tax evasion - Refusal to grant the exemption - Whether permissible))
(2016/C 475/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Josef Plöckl

Defendant: Finanzamt Schrobenhausen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22(8) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2005/92/EC of 12 December 2005, in the version resulting from Article 28h of that Sixth Directive, and the first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) and Article 28c(A)(d) of that directive must be interpreted as precluding a tax authority of the Member State of origin from refusing to exempt an intra-Community transfer from VAT on the ground that the taxable person has not provided a VAT identification number issued by the Member State of destination, where there is no specific evidence of tax evasion, the goods have been moved to another Member State and the other conditions of exemption from tax are also met.


(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.