do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-30/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2017 — M. I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended — Earlier EU word marks INSTINCT and NATURE’S VARIETY — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Nature of the use — Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
Date: 2017-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pet food, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017095EN.01001101.xml










27.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/11





Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2017 — M. I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended)
(Case T-30/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended - Earlier EU word marks INSTINCT and NATURE’S VARIETY - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Nature of the use - Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
(2017/C 095/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: M. I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, Nebraska, United States) (represented by: initially by T. Elias, Barrister, and B. Cookson, Solicitor, and subsequently by M. Montañá Mora, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Natural Instinct Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker, lawyers, and B. Brandreth, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 (Case R 2944/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between M. I. Industries and Natural Instinct.

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 26 November 2015 (Case R 2944/2014-5) in so far as it concludes that there is no genuine use of the earlier word mark INSTINCT;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by M. I. Industries Inc.;










4.


Orders M. I. Industries to bear half of its own costs;










5.


Orders Natural Instinct Ltd to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
Case T-568/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2017 — Morgese and Others v EUIPO — All Star (2 STAR) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark 2 STAR — Earlier EU figurative mark ONE STAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, leather industry, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017095EN.01000901.xml










27.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/9





Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2017 — Morgese and Others v EUIPO — All Star (2 STAR)
(Case T-568/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark 2 STAR - Earlier EU figurative mark ONE STAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 095/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Giuseppe Morgese (Barletta, Italy), Pasquale Morgese (Barletta), Felice D’Onofrio (Barletta) (represented by: D. Russo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: All Star CV (Hilversum, Netherlands) (represented by C. Sleep, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2015 (Case R 1906/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between All Star, on the one hand, and Messrs G. Morgese, P. Morgese and F. D’Onofrio, on the other hand.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Messrs Giuseppe Morgese, Pasquale Morgese and Felice D’Onofrio to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
Case C-84/17 P: Appeal brought on 15 February 2017 by Société des produits Nestlé SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-112/13: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2017-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017178EN.01000401.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/4





Appeal brought on 15 February 2017 by Société des produits Nestlé SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-112/13: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-84/17 P)
(2017/C 178/04)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (represented by: G.S.P. Vos, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 December 2016, case T-112/13, on that basis that the General Court infringed article 7(3) and 52(2) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (‘EUTMR’) (1); and










—


order the respondent, applicant before the General Court, Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Nestlé appeals the General Court’s judgment on the ground that the General Court infringed article 7(3) and article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No. 207/2009 amended by Regulation (EU) No. 2015/2424 (2), also known as EUTMR.
More specifically, Nestlé’s appeal is directed against the decision of the General Court that concerning the extent of the territory in which it is necessary to establish distinctive character acquired through use of a mark, the distinctive character acquired through use of that mark must be shown throughout the territory of the European Union, that is, in all the Member States concerned.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OJ 2015, L 341, p. 21).
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-02-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard








C_2017048EN.01000501.xml










15.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/5





Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)
(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 48/06)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2017) 658


8 February 2017


Trichloroethylene
EC No 201-167-4
CAS No 79-01-6


Richard Geiss GmbH, Lueßhof 100, 89362 Offingen, Bayern, Germany


REACH/2017/1/0


Use of trichloroethylene in formulation


21 April 2028


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility.




REACH/2017/1/1


Use of trichloroethylene in packaging






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 February 2017 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol (2015) amending the Annex to the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (11018/2016 — C8-0391/2016 — 2016/0202(NLE))
Date: 2017-02-15
Institutions: Committee on International Trade, Committee on Transport and Tourism, European Parliament
Subjects: aircraft, protocol to an agreement, ratification of an agreement, revision of an agreement, trade agreement (EU)








C_2018252EN.01035101.xml










18.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/351





P8_TA(2017)0034
Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (Product Coverage Annex) ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 February 2017 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol (2015) amending the Annex to the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (11018/2016 — C8-0391/2016 — 2016/0202(NLE))
(Consent)
(2018/C 252/41)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (11018/2016),










—


having regard to the Protocol (2015) amending the Annex to the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (11019/2016),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(4) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0391/2016),










—


having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A8-0007/2017),












1.


Gives its consent to conclusion of the Protocol;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-02-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard








C_2017048EN.01000701.xml










15.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/7





Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)
(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 48/08)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2017) 661


8 February 2017


Sodium dichromate
EC No 234-190-3,
CAS No 7789-12-0 10588-01-9


Boliden Mineral AB, Rönnskärsverken, 932 81, Skelleftehamn, Sweden


REACH/17/4/0


Use of sodium dichromate in copper/lead separation in concentrators handling complex sulphide ores


21 September 2024


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their economic feasibility.






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2017-02-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, animal feedingstuffs, common customs tariff








C_2017048EN.01000202.xml










15.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/2





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2017/C 48/03)
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 106, the explanatory note CN subheadings ‘2309 10 11 to 2309 10 90 Dog or cat food, put up for retail sale’ is replaced by the following:


‘These subheadings include articles to be chewed by dogs, presented in various shapes (e.g. knots, sticks, etc.) and consisting of hide with other substances added (such as starch, sugar or dry meat). However, products made of 100 % hide that have not undergone any additional preparation for feed purposes are excluded (heading 4205).’



(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 76, 4.3.2015, p. 1.
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-02-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard








C_2017048EN.01000301.xml










15.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/3





Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)
(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 48/04)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2017) 649


8 February 2017


Trichloroethylene
EC No 201-167-4
CAS No 79-01-6


Grupa Azoty S.A., ul. Kwiatkowskiego 8, 33-101 Tarnów, Poland.


REACH/17/2/0


Industrial use of trichloroethylene as a process chemical in caprolactam purification


21 April 2028


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility.






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Case T-104/17: Action brought on 15 February 2017 — Apple v EUIPO — Apo International (apo)
Date: 2017-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, electronic device, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017129EN.01002301.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/23





Action brought on 15 February 2017 — Apple v EUIPO — Apo International (apo)
(Case T-104/17)
(2017/C 129/36)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors, and G. Tritton, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apo International Co. Ltd (Taipei City, Taiwan)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘apo’ — Application for registration No 11 293 628

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 698/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


uphold the Applicant’s appeal against the contested decision in its entirety;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


The contested decision offends against the principle of reformatio in peius;










—


The Board of Appeal erred in finding that the passing off claim under Article 8(4) was not substantiated.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-02-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017048EN.01000101.xml










15.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

14 February 2017
(2017/C 48/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0623 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,43 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4359 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85098 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4653 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0659 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,8790 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,13 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3012 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5051 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,8780 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3813 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3842 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2422 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,4780 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5044 




KRW


South Korean won


1 207,63 




ZAR


South African rand


13,9140 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2902 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4537 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 138,08 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7263 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,952 




RUB


Russian rouble


60,9409 




THB


Thai baht


37,154 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2881 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,4981 




INR


Indian rupee


70,9755 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-101/17: Action brought on 15 February 2017 — Apple Distribution International v Commission
Date: 2017-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, Internet, State aid, control of State aid, film industry, financial aid, originating product, provision of services, quasi-fiscal charge








C_2017121EN.01003901.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/39





Action brought on 15 February 2017 — Apple Distribution International v Commission
(Case T-101/17)
(2017/C 121/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Apple Distribution International (Cork, Ireland) (represented by: S. Schwiddessen, H. Lutz, N. Niejahr, and A. Patsa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2042 of 1 September 2016;










—


order the European Commission to pay its own costs as well as the applicant’s costs in connection with these proceedings.





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 a violation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive






—


First, the European Commission violated Articles 2(1), 2(2) and 3 of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive by finding that the country of origin principle does not apply to the film levy. Second, the European Commission violated Article 13(1) of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive by considering that this article allows Member States to impose financial contributions for the promotion of European works on video-on-demand providers who are established in other Member States.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 110 TFEU






—


The European Commission violated Article 110 TFEU by finding that the application of the film levy to video-on-demand providers who are established in other Member States is not discriminatory.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 56 TFEU






—


The European Commission failed to examine whether the application of the film levy to video-on-demand providers who are established in other Member States violates Article 56 TFEU














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Directive 98/34/EC






—


The European Commission failed to examine whether the application of the film levy to video-on-demand providers who are established in other Member States required notification under Directive 98/34/EC.