do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-140/16 R II: Order of the President of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament (Interim measures — Member of the European Parliament — Recovery by offsetting of allowances paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Fresh application — New facts — No urgency)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, debt, parliamentary allowance








C_2017121EN.01003001.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/30





Order of the President of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament
(Case T-140/16 R II)
((Interim measures - Member of the European Parliament - Recovery by offsetting of allowances paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Fresh application - New facts - No urgency))
(2017/C 121/43)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Alonso de León, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking the suspension of operation of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2016 ordering the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 320 026,23, and of debit note No 2016-195 of 4 February 2016 adopted pursuant to that decision.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-516/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Types) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Types — Lack of distinctive character — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, consultancy, market research, registered trade mark, theory of marketing, trade-mark law








C_2017104EN.01004602.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/46





Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Types)
(Case T-516/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Types - Lack of distinctive character - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 104/65)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1974/2014-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Limbic® Types as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1974/2014-1);










2.


Orders that EUIPO shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG.






(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8216 — Allianz/Dalmore/BEL) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial institution, insurance company, merger control, road services department, water supply, water treatment








C_2017049EN.01000102.xml










16.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8216 — Allianz/Dalmore/BEL)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 49/02)
On 13 December 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 32016M8216. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-517/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Sales) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Sales — Lack of distinctive character — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, consultancy, market research, registered trade mark, theory of marketing, trade-mark law








C_2017104EN.01004701.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/47





Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Sales)
(Case T-517/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Sales - Lack of distinctive character - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 104/66)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1972/2014-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Limbic® Sales as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1972/2014-1);










2.


Orders that EUIPO shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG.






(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
Case T-18/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — DMC v EUIPO — Etike’ International (De Giusti ORGOGLIO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark De Giusti ORGOGLIO — Earlier EU word mark ORGOGLIO — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017104EN.01004702.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/47





Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — DMC v EUIPO — Etike’ International (De Giusti ORGOGLIO)
(Case T-18/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark De Giusti ORGOGLIO - Earlier EU word mark ORGOGLIO - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 104/67)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: DMC Srl (San Vendemiano, Italy) (represented by: B. Osti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Etike’ International Srl (Baronissi, Italy) (represented by: V. Fiorillo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2015 (Case R 1764/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Etike’ International and DMC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders DMC Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
Case C-90/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — Hansen & Rosenthal KG, H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for paraffin wax and the German market for slack wax — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Evidence of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction — Distortion of evidence — Obligation to state reasons — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Principle of legality — The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Principle of proportionality)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, cartel, control of restrictive practices, domestic market, legality, market-sharing agreement, paraffin, price agreement, principle of proportionality, sanction (EU)








C_2017112EN.01000401.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/4





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — Hansen & Rosenthal KG, H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH v European Commission
(Case C-90/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for paraffin wax and the German market for slack wax - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Evidence of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction - Distortion of evidence - Obligation to state reasons - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Principle of legality - The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of proportionality))
(2017/C 112/05)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellants: Hansen & Rosenthal KG, H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH (represented by: J. Schulte, M. Dallmann and K. Künstner, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer, C. Vollrath and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents, and by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dimsisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Hansen & Rosenthal KG and H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.
Case C-145/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Aramex Nederland BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Validity — Regulation (EU) No 301/2012 — Headings 8703 and 8711 — Three-wheeled motor vehicle called ‘Spyder’)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, customs union, motor vehicle, specification of tariff heading








C_2017112EN.01001002.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/10





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Aramex Nederland BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane
(Case C-145/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Validity - Regulation (EU) No 301/2012 - Headings 8703 and 8711 - Three-wheeled motor vehicle called ‘Spyder’))
(2017/C 112/15)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Aramex Nederland BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that a three-wheeled vehicle, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, fitted with tyres manufactured for three-wheeled motorcycles but similar to those for motor cars, steered using a handlebar and fitted with a steering system based on the Ackermann principle, falls within heading 8703 of that nomenclature.


(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.
Joined Cases T-828/14 and T-829/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Antrax It v EUIPO — Vasco Group (Thermosiphons for radiators) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community designs representing thermosiphons for radiators — Earlier designs — Plea of unlawfulness — Article 1(d) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 — Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Principle of impartiality — Composition of the Board of Appeal — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment setting aside a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal — Saturation of the state of the art — Date of assessment)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, heating








C_2017095EN.01000701.xml










27.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/7





Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Antrax It v EUIPO — Vasco Group (Thermosiphons for radiators)
(Joined Cases T-828/14 and T-829/14) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community designs representing thermosiphons for radiators - Earlier designs - Plea of unlawfulness - Article 1(d) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 - Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Principle of impartiality - Composition of the Board of Appeal - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment setting aside a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal - Saturation of the state of the art - Date of assessment))
(2017/C 095/13)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: L. Gazzola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by M. P. Bullock, and subsequently by L. Rampini and S. Di Natale, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Vasco Group NV, formerly Vasco Group BVBA (Dilsen, Belgium) (represented by: J. Haber, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2014 (Cases R 1272/2013-3 and R 1273/2013-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Vasco Group BVBA and Antrax It.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeals;










2.


Orders Antrax It Sarl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Vasco Group, including those incurred by Vasco Group NV for the proceedings before the Board of Appeal in Cases R 1272/2013-3 and R 1273/2013-3.






(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
Case T-97/17: Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Franmax v EUIPO — R. Seelig & Hille (her- bea)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, tea, trade-mark law








C_2017112EN.01004601.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/46





Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Franmax v EUIPO — R. Seelig & Hille (her- bea)
(Case T-97/17)
(2017/C 112/64)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Franmax UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: E. Saukalas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: R. Seelig & Hille OHG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘her- bea’– Application for registration No 12 689 964

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 371/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-626/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Troszczynski v Parliament (Interim measures — Member of the European Parliament — Recovery by offsetting of allowances paid in the context of the reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, debt, parliamentary allowance








C_2017121EN.01003302.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/33





Order of the President of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Troszczynski v Parliament
(Case T-626/16 R)
((Interim measures - Member of the European Parliament - Recovery by offsetting of allowances paid in the context of the reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))
(2017/C 121/49)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mylène Troszczynski (Noyon, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Alonso de León, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of operation of the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 23 June 2016 concerning the recovery from the applicant of EUR 56 554 and of debit note No 2016-888 issued pursuant to that decision

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is rejected.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-577/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — Brandconcern BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 51(2) — Word mark LAMBRETTA — Genuine use of the mark — Application for revocation — Partial revocation — Communication No 2/12 of the President of EUIPO — Limitation of the temporal effects of a judgment of the Court)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2017112EN.01000301.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/3





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — Brandconcern BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-577/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 51(2) - Word mark LAMBRETTA - Genuine use of the mark - Application for revocation - Partial revocation - Communication No 2/12 of the President of EUIPO - Limitation of the temporal effects of a judgment of the Court))
(2017/C 112/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Brandconcern BV (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte, and by G. Casucci, N. Ferretti and C. Galli, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Scooters India Ltd, (represented by: C. Wolfe, Solicitor, and by B. Brandreth and A. Edwards-Stuart, Barristers)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Brandconcern BV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015, p. 3.
Case C-95/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — H&R ChemPharm GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for paraffin wax and the German market for slack wax — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of the evidence — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(3) — Calculation of the amount of the fine — The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Principle of proportionality)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, cartel, domestic market, market-sharing agreement, paraffin, price agreement, principle of proportionality, sanction (EU)








C_2017112EN.01000501.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/5





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — H&R ChemPharm GmbH v European Commission
(Case C-95/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for paraffin wax and the German market for slack wax - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of the evidence - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(3) - Calculation of the amount of the fine - The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of proportionality))
(2017/C 112/07)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: H&R ChemPharm GmbH (represented by: M. Klusmann, lawyer and S. Thomas, Professor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer, C. Vollrath and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents, and by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dimsisses the appeal;










2.


Orders H&R ChemPharm GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
Case C-555/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 6 de Murcia — Spain) — IOS Finance EFC SA v Servicio Murciano de Salud (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Combating late payment in commercial transactions — Directive 2011/7/EU — Commercial transactions between private undertakings and public authorities — National legislation making the immediate recovery of the principal amount of a debt conditional upon the waiver of interest for late payment and of compensation for recovery costs)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: commercial transaction, debt, interest, payment, public-private partnership








C_2017112EN.01000201.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/2





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 6 de Murcia — Spain) — IOS Finance EFC SA v Servicio Murciano de Salud
(Case C-555/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Combating late payment in commercial transactions - Directive 2011/7/EU - Commercial transactions between private undertakings and public authorities - National legislation making the immediate recovery of the principal amount of a debt conditional upon the waiver of interest for late payment and of compensation for recovery costs))
(2017/C 112/02)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 6 de Murcia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IOS Finance EFC SA

Defendant: Servicio Murciano de Salud

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, and Article 7(2) and (3) thereof in particular, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a creditor to waive his right to interest for late payment and compensation for recovery costs in exchange for immediate payment of the principal amount of debts owed, on condition that such a waiver is freely agreed to, this being a matter for the referring court to verify.


(1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.