do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-30/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 November 2016 — Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Seven Towns Ltd (Appeal — European Union trade mark — Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity)
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2017014EN.01000402.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/4






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 November 2016 — Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Seven Towns Ltd
(Case C-30/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - European Union trade mark - Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity))
(2017/C 014/05)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Ruhl, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents), Seven Towns Ltd (represented by: K. Szamosi and M. Borbás, ügyvédek)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 November 2014, Simba Toys v OHIM — Seven Towns (Shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure) (T-450/09, EU:T:2014:983);










2.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 September 2009 (Case R 1526/2008-2) relating to cancellation proceedings between Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG and Seven Towns Ltd;










3.


Orders Seven Towns Ltd and the European Union Intellectual Property Office to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG relating both to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-450/09 and to the appeal.






(1)  
            OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, real property, sale








C_2016413EN.01000601.xml










10.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/6





No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
(2016/C 413/06)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:








Date of adoption of the decision



:


15 June 2016





Case No



:


79001





Decision No



:


127/16/COL





EFTA State



:


Norway





Region



:


Oslo





Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)



:


Urbanium AS





Legal basis



:





Type of measure



:


Sale of property





Objective



:





Form of aid



:


No aid





Budget



:





Intensity



:





Duration



:





Economic sectors



:





Name and address of the granting authority



:







City of Oslo, Agency for Real Estate and Urban Renewal




Christian Krohgs gate 16




N-0105 Oslo




NORWAY









Other information



:




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/
Case T-67/15: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2016 — Polo Club v EUIPO — Lifestyle Equities (POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN — Earlier EU figurative marks BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Production of additional evidence — Discretion conferred by Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Remittal of the case in part to the Opposition Division — Article 64(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2017006EN.01003302.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/33





Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2016 — Polo Club v EUIPO — Lifestyle Equities (POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN)
(Case T-67/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN - Earlier EU figurative marks BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Production of additional evidence - Discretion conferred by Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Remittal of the case in part to the Opposition Division - Article 64(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2017/C 006/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Polo Club (Gassin, France) (represented by: D. Masson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by V. Melgar and H. Kunz and subsequently by H. O’Neil, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lifestyle Equities CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Russo and V. Wellens, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2014 (Case R 1882/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Lifestyle Equities and Polo Club.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Polo Club to pay the costs of the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
Case C-297/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten — Denmark) — Ferring Lægemidler A/S, acting on behalf of Ferring BV v Orifarm A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 7(2) — Medicinal products — Parallel import — Partitioning of the markets — Need for the repackaging of the product bearing the mark — Medicinal product placed on the exporting market and importing market by the trade mark proprietor with the same kind of packaging)
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Economic Area, export, import, labelling, market approval, medicinal product, packaged product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017014EN.01000902.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/9






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten — Denmark) — Ferring Lægemidler A/S, acting on behalf of Ferring BV v Orifarm A/S
(Case C-297/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 7(2) - Medicinal products - Parallel import - Partitioning of the markets - Need for the repackaging of the product bearing the mark - Medicinal product placed on the exporting market and importing market by the trade mark proprietor with the same kind of packaging))
(2017/C 014/12)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Sø- og Handelsretten

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ferring Lægemidler A/S, acting on behalf of Ferring BV

Defendant: Orifarm A/S

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor may object to the continued marketing of a medicinal product by a parallel importer, where that importer has repackaged that medicinal product in a new, outer packaging and reaffixed the trade mark, where, first, the medicinal product at issue can be marketed in the importing State party to the EEA Agreement, of 2 May 1992, in the same packaging as that in which it is marketed in the exporting State party to the EEA Agreement and, second, the importer has not demonstrated that the imported product can only be marketed in a limited part of the importing State’s market, and those are matters which it is for the referring court to determine.


(1)  
            OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.