do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-529/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO (START UP INITIATIVE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark START UP INITIATIVE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business start-up, marketing, new technology, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, traineeship








C_2017038EN.01003201.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/32





Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO (START UP INITIATIVE)
(Case T-529/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark START UP INITIATIVE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2017/C 038/43)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and F. Braga, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by P. Bullock, and subsequently by L. Rampini, acting Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2015 (Case R 2777/2014-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign START UP INITIATIVE as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Intesa Sanpaolo SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.
Case C-558/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — Alberto José Vieira Azevedo and Others v CED Portugal Unipessoal Lda, Instituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability — Directive 2000/26/EC — Article 4(5) — Insurance undertaking — Claims representative — Sufficient powers of representation — Notifications of proceedings before the courts)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability proceedings, compulsory insurance, damages, insurance company, insurance law, motor vehicle insurance, third-party insurance, transport accident








C_2017046EN.01000701.xml










13.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/7





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — Alberto José Vieira Azevedo and Others v CED Portugal Unipessoal Lda, Instituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel
(Case C-558/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability - Directive 2000/26/EC - Article 4(5) - Insurance undertaking - Claims representative - Sufficient powers of representation - Notifications of proceedings before the courts))
(2017/C 046/08)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Alberto José Vieira Azevedo, Maria da Conceição Ferreira da Silva, Carlos Manuel Ferreira Alves, Rui Dinis Ferreira Alves, Vítor José Ferreira Alves

Defendants: CED Portugal Unipessoal Lda, Instituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

Intervening parties: Institituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Acidentes de Trabalho

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4 of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive), as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to provide that the claims representative appointed pursuant to that article may itself be sued, instead of the insurance undertaking which it represents, in the national court before which an action for damages was brought by an injured party falling within the scope of Article 1 of Directive 2000/26, as amended by Directive 2005/14.


(1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
Case C-667/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Loterie Nationale — Nationale Loterij NV van publiek recht v Paul Adriaensen, Werner De Kesel, The Right Frequency VZW (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices — Misleading commercial practice — Pyramid promotional scheme — Contributions paid by new members and compensation received by existing members — Indirect financial link)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, economic offence, payment, restriction on competition








C_2017046EN.01000802.xml










13.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/8





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Loterie Nationale — Nationale Loterij NV van publiek recht v Paul Adriaensen, Werner De Kesel, The Right Frequency VZW
(Case C-667/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices - Misleading commercial practice - Pyramid promotional scheme - Contributions paid by new members and compensation received by existing members - Indirect financial link))
(2017/C 046/11)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Loterie Nationale — Nationale Loterij NV van publiek recht

Defendants: Paul Adriaensen, Werner De Kesel, The Right Frequency VZW

Operative part of the judgment

Point 14 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as allowing a commercial practice to be classified as a ‘pyramid promotional scheme’ even if there is only an indirect link between the contributions paid by new members of the scheme and the compensation paid to existing members.


(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
Notice concerning the provisional application of the Stepping Stone Economic Partnership Agreement between Ghana, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Ghana, cooperation agreement (EU), economic cooperation, interim agreement (EU)








L_2016340EN.01000101.xml










15.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 340/1







Notice concerning the provisional application of the Stepping Stone Economic Partnership Agreement between Ghana, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part

The European Union and the Republic of Ghana have notified the completion of the procedures necessary for the provisional application of the Stepping Stone Economic Partnership Agreement between Ghana, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part (1), in accordance with Article 75 of that Agreement. Consequently, the Agreement applies provisionally as from 15 December 2016 between the European Union and the Republic of Ghana.


(1)  
            OJ L 287, 21.10.2016, p. 1.
Case C-644/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Synthon BV v Astellas Pharma Inc.
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European patent, copyright








C_2017086EN.01000901.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Synthon BV v Astellas Pharma Inc.
(Case C-644/16)
(2017/C 086/11)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Synthon BV

Respondent: Astellas Pharma Inc.

Questions referred







1.








(a)


Must Article 6 of the Enforcement Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that, when adopting a criterion for granting a claim for the production of exhibits, a distinction must be made according to whether the party from whom the exhibits are sought is an (alleged) infringer or a third party?










(b)


If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, in what respect do those criteria then differ?














2.








(a)


If a defence is raised against a claim for the production of exhibits contending that the intellectual-property right on the basis of which the exhibits are sought is void (or no longer exists), should the merits of that defence be assessed on the basis of the same criterion as that which applies to the question of the plausibility of the alleged infringement (assuming that the intellectual-property right invoked actually exists)?










(b)


If the answer to that question is in the negative, in what respect do the criteria differ?










(c)


In answering Questions 2(a) and 2(b), should a distinction be made according to whether the intellectual-property right concerned was granted after its validity had been investigated (as in the case of a European patent), or whether it arose by operation of law (as in the case of copyright)?










(1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual-property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).
Case T-421/09 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — DEI v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Greek market for the supply of lignite and Greek wholesale electricity market — Decision establishing specific measures to correct the anti-competitive effects of an infringement of Article 86(1) EC, in conjunction with Article 82 EC — Article 86(3) EC — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Freedom of contract)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, coal mining, dominant position, electrical energy, lignite, mining operation, principle of proportionality








C_2017038EN.01002201.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/22





Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — DEI v Commission
(Case T-421/09 RENV) (1)

((Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Greek market for the supply of lignite and Greek wholesale electricity market - Decision establishing specific measures to correct the anti-competitive effects of an infringement of Article 86(1) EC, in conjunction with Article 82 EC - Article 86(3) EC - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Freedom of contract))
(2017/C 038/29)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Anestis, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, Agent, and A. Oikonomou, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission decision C(2009) 6244 final of 4 August 2009 establishing specific measures to correct the anti-competitive effects of the infringement identified in the Commission Decision of 5 March 2008 on the granting or maintaining in force by the Hellenic Republic of rights in favour of DEI for the extraction of lignite.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Declares that the Hellenic Republic is to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.
Case C-645/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL v Demeures terre et tradition SARL
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: indemnification, probationary period, sales representative, termination of a contract








C_2017070EN.01001002.xml










6.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL v Demeures terre et tradition SARL
(Case C-645/16)
(2017/C 070/16)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL

Defendant: Demeures terre et tradition SARL

Question referred

Does Article 17 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (1) apply where termination of the commercial agency contract occurs during the trial period provided for in that contract?


(1)  OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.
Case T-808/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Spain v Commission (State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of ‘undertaking’ — Economic activity — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Distortion of competition — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Duty of diligence — Reasonable period — Legal certainty — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Subsidiarity — Right to information)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Castile-La Mancha, State aid, control of State aid, digitisation, peripheral region, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, principle of subsidiarity, services of general interest








C_2017038EN.01002701.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/27





Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-808/14) (1)

((State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of ‘undertaking’ - Economic activity - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Distortion of competition - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Duty of diligence - Reasonable period - Legal certainty - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Subsidiarity - Right to information))
(2017/C 038/36)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, and subsequently by A. Gavela Llopis, abogados del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, P. Němečková and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6846 final of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA.27408 ((C 24/2010) (ex NN 37/2010, ex CP 19/2009)) implemented by the authorities of Castilla-La Mancha for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha, as amended by Decision C(2015) 7193 final of 20 October 2015 correcting certain errors contained in Decision C(2014) 6846 final.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
Judgment of the Court of 15 December 2016 in Case E-1/16 — Synnøve Finden AS v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Product coverage of the EEA Agreement — Dairy products — State aid — State resources — Effect on trade and distortion of competition — Freedom of establishment)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EFTA, European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, dairy production, equal treatment, milk product, restriction on competition, right of establishment








C_2017133EN.01000401.xml










27.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/4





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 15 December 2016
in Case E-1/16
Synnøve Finden AS v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food
(Product coverage of the EEA Agreement — Dairy products — State aid — State resources — Effect on trade and distortion of competition — Freedom of establishment)
(2017/C 133/04)
In Case E-1/16, Synnøve Finden AS v the Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) concerning the interpretation of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Articles 31 and 61 thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 15 December 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


Article 61 EEA must be interpreted as meaning that a mechanism, provided for by national regulation, according to which an undertaking is granted NOK 0,50 per litre for a quantity limited up to 100 million litres for the distribution of certain products, some of which fall within the scope of the EEA Agreement, constitutes a State aid measure, provided that the referring court, having regard to all the facts before it and the guidance provided by the Court, finds that there is an intervention by the State or through State resources, that the intervention is liable to affect trade between EEA States, that it confers a selective advantage on the beneficiary and that it distorts or threatens to distort competition. Such a finding by the referring court would render the scheme subject to the notification requirement laid down in Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice.










2.


In the event that a State aid scheme is inseparably linked to certain products not exclusively outside the scope of the EEA Agreement, the measure as a whole must be notified to the EFTA Surveillance Authority.










3.


A national court will not have cause to assess a State aid scheme in light of the freedom of establishment in Article 31 EEA, unless it can be assessed separately in law from the State aid measure.
Case T-112/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Mondelez UK Holdings & Services v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (Shape of a chocolate bar) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional mark — Shape of a chocolate bar — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017038EN.01002301.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/23





Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Mondelez UK Holdings & Services v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (Shape of a chocolate bar)
(Case T-112/13) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional mark - Shape of a chocolate bar - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2017/C 038/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd (Uxbridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Mitcheson QC, P. Walsh, J. Blum, and S. Dunstan, Solicitors, and D. Byrne, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented initially by G. Vos, M. Bakker and J. van den Berg, lawyers, and subsequently by G. Vos, S. Malynicz QC, T. Scourfield and T. Reid, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2012 (Case R 513/2011-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Cadbury Holdings and Société des produits Nestlé.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 December 2012 (Case R 513/2011-2);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd;










3.


Orders Société des produits Nestlé SA to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.