do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-578/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — Azur Space Solar Power GmbH v EUIPO (Representation of white lines and bricks on a black background) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing white lines and bricks on a black background — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, photovoltaic cell, registered trade mark, solar collector, trade-mark law








C_2017022EN.01002801.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/28





Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — Azur Space Solar Power GmbH v EUIPO (Representation of white lines and bricks on a black background)
(Case T-578/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing white lines and bricks on a black background - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 022/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Azur Space Solar Power GmbH (Heilbronn, Germany) (represented by: J. Nicodemus and S. Stöcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially by E. Zaera Cuadrado, and subsequently by A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2015 (Case R 2780/2014-4), concerning the international registration designating the European Union of a figurative mark representing white lines and bricks on a black background.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Azur Space Solar Power GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8300 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services/Computer Sciences Corporation) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control








C_2016434EN.01000801.xml










24.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8300 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services/Computer Sciences Corporation)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 434/08)






1.


On 17 November 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company’s enterprise services business, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services (‘HPES’, United States) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Computer Sciences Corporation (‘CSC’, United States) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for HPES: provision of technology consulting, information technology (‘IT’) outsourcing and support services in traditional and enterprise services offerings,
—   for CSC: provision of IT services and 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 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.8300 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services/Computer Sciences Corporation, 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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8244 — The Coca-Cola Company/Coca-Cola HBC/Neptūno Vandenys) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beverage industry, economic concentration, merger control, wholesale trade








C_2016434EN.01000901.xml










24.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8244 — The Coca-Cola Company/Coca-Cola HBC/Neptūno Vandenys)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 434/09)






1.


On 17 November 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 Coca-Cola Company (USA) and Coca-Cola HBC AG (Switzerland) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Neptūno Vandenys UAB (Lithuania) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for The Coca-Cola Company: is a brand owner and licensor of various trademarks used to market and sell non-alcoholic beverages. It also produces soft drink concentrate and syrup that it supplies to bottling and canning operations, as well as fountain retailers,
—   for Coca-Cola HBC AG: is an authorised bottler of The Coca-Cola Company that produces, markets, and sells Coca-Cola Company-branded and other beverages in the EU and elsewhere in Eurasia and Africa,
—   for Neptūno Vandenys UAB: extracts, bottles, markets, and sells packaged and flavoured water in Lithuania under the Neptūnas brand.










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.










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.8244 — The Coca-Cola Company/Coca-Cola HBC/Neptūno Vandenys, 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’).
Case T-349/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — CG v EUIPO — Perry Ellis International Group (P PRO PLAYER) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark P PRO PLAYER — Earlier EU and national figurative marks P and P PROTECTIVE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017014EN.01003101.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/31






Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — CG v EUIPO — Perry Ellis International Group (P PRO PLAYER)
(Case T-349/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark P PRO PLAYER - Earlier EU and national figurative marks P and P PROTECTIVE - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 014/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: CG Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Gevelsberg, Germany) (represented by: T. Körber, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Stoyanova-Valchanova and M. Fischer, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Ltd (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: O. Günzel and V. Ahmann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2015 (Case R 2439/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Perry Ellis International Group Holdings and CG Verwaltungsgesellschaft.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders CG Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Ltd.






(1)  
            OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Case T-841/16: Action brought on 24 November 2016 — Alex v Commission
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Aquitaine, European Regional Development Fund, France, State aid, reimbursement of aid








C_2017030EN.01005501.xml










30.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/55





Action brought on 24 November 2016 — Alex v Commission
(Case T-841/16)
(2017/C 030/63)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Alex SCI (Bayonne, France) (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 21 September 2016;










—


declare and hold that the aid paid to the Côte-Basque-Adour Conurbation Authority (CABAB) by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the French State, the Aquitaine Regional Council and the Pyrénées Atlantiques Departmental Council is unlawful and incompatible with the common market;




and consequently,






—


order the French State, the Aquitaine Regional Council, the Pyrénées Atlantiques Departmental Council, as decentralised state bodies, and the ERDF to recover the aid unlawfully paid, together with interest at the statutory rate as from the date on which that aid was made available;










—


order the European Commission to bear all the costs of the proceedings, including lawyers’ fees of EUR 5 000.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging the substantive unlawfulness of the decision of the European Commission.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a failure to notify the financing allocated to the ‘Technocité’ project, granted by the ERDF, the French Republic, the Aquitaine Regional Council and the Pyrénées Atlantiques Departmental Council to the CABAB.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the incompatibility of the financing with the internal market.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging the non-performance of conditions to which the grant of the financing was subject.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016434EN.01000201.xml










24.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

23 November 2016
(2016/C 434/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0602 




JPY


Japanese yen


118,04 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4398 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85393 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7863 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0731 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0680 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,027 




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,04 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4154 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5165 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,5944 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4294 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4260 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2232 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5039 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5136 




KRW


South Korean won


1 248,20 




ZAR


South African rand


14,9912 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3157 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5280 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 351,42 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7122 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,899 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,1458 




THB


Thai baht


37,743 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5860 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,8340 




INR


Indian rupee


72,8745 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, customs regulations, exemption from customs duties








C_2016434EN.01000501.xml










24.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/5





No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
(2016/C 434/05)
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



:


13 July 2016





Case No



:


78079





Decision No



:


155/16/COL





EFTA State



:


Norway





Region



:





Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)



:





Legal basis



:


Customs Act





Type of measure



:


Import duty exemption for certain low-value goods imported by final consumers





Objective



:





Form of aid



:


No aid





Budget



:





Intensity



:





Duration



:





Economic sectors



:





Name and address of the granting authority



:







Royal Ministry of Finance




Akersgate 40




NO-0030 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-250/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — Speciality Drinks Ltd v EUIPO — William Grant (CLAN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CLAN — Earlier EU word mark CLAN MACGREGOR — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods covered by the signs at issue — Relevant public — Interdependence of the criteria — Power to alter — Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcohol, liqueur, registered trade mark, spirits, trade-mark law








C_2017063EN.01002402.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/24





Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — Speciality Drinks Ltd v EUIPO — William Grant (CLAN)
(Case T-250/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CLAN - Earlier EU word mark CLAN MACGREGOR - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods covered by the signs at issue - Relevant public - Interdependence of the criteria - Power to alter - Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2017/C 063/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Speciality Drinks Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Pritchard, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Vuijst, A. Folliard-Monguiral and M. Rajh, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: William Grant & Sons Ltd (Dufftown, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Cormack and G. Anderson, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2015 (Case R 220/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between William Grant & Sons Ltd and Speciality Drinks Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Speciality Drinks Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8151 — Naxicap/TimePartners) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, employment service, merger control, temporary employment agency








C_2016434EN.01000101.xml










24.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8151 — Naxicap/TimePartners)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 434/01)
On 11 November 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 32016M8151. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8180 — Verizon Communications Inc./Yahoo Holdings, Inc.) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Internet, economic concentration, information service, information technology industry, merger control








C_2016434EN.01000701.xml










24.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8180 — Verizon Communications Inc./Yahoo Holdings, Inc.)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 434/07)






1.


On 17 November 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 Verizon Communications Inc. (‘Verizon’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Yahoo Inc.’s operating business (‘Yahoo’, USA) by way of purchase of shares. It will not acquire Yahoo’s cash and marketable securities, its shares in Alibaba Group Holdings Limited, its shares in Yahoo Japan Corporation, certain minority investments, or Excalibur IP, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Yahoo that owns certain intellectual property not core to Yahoo’s operating business.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Verizon: a provider of communications, information and entertainment products and services to consumers, businesses and governmental agencies. It provides wireless and wireline services, with a number of related products and services, and operates network infrastructure. AOL, one of its subsidiaries, is a media technology company that connects publishers, advertisers and consumers over its platforms,
—   for Yahoo: a technology company that offers personalised experiences to consumers and connects advertisers with target audiences. It provides various internet services such as search, communications, and digital content. Yahoo’s assets include content brands in finance, news, sports, as well as email services. Yahoo owns various technology assets in the advertising space.










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.










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.8180 — Verizon Communications Inc./Yahoo Holdings, Inc. 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’).
Case C-454/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Jürgen Webb-Sämann v Christopher Seagon (acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Baumarkt Praktiker DIY GmbH) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2008/94/EC — Article 8 — Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Provisions related to social security — Scope — Measures necessary to protect immediate or prospective entitlements of employees under supplementary pension schemes — Obligation to provide for a right to have outstanding pension contributions excluded from the scope of insolvency proceedings — Absence)
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: account, bank deposit, financial solvency, pay, staff, supplementary pension








C_2017030EN.01001201.xml










30.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/12





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 August 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Jürgen Webb-Sämann v Christopher Seagon (acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Baumarkt Praktiker DIY GmbH)
(Case C-454/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2008/94/EC - Article 8 - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Provisions related to social security - Scope - Measures necessary to protect immediate or prospective entitlements of employees under supplementary pension schemes - Obligation to provide for a right to have outstanding pension contributions excluded from the scope of insolvency proceedings - Absence))
(2017/C 030/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hessisches Landesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jürgen Webb-Sämann

Defendant: Christopher Seagon (acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Baumarkt Praktiker DIY GmbH)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require that, in the event of employer insolvency, money withheld from a former employee’s salary converted into pension contributions, which that employer should have paid into a pension fund on behalf of that employee, be excluded from the scope of insolvency proceedings.


(1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.