do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-23/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Formata — Absolute ground for invalidity — Absence of bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for invalidity — Likelihood of confusion — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017129EN.01001802.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/18





Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata)
(Case T-23/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Formata - Absolute ground for invalidity - Absence of bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for invalidity - Likelihood of confusion - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 129/30)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Ilona Biernacka-Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Formata Bogusław Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2015 (Case R 102/2015-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ms Biernacka-Hoba and Formata Bogusław Hoba.

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 4 November 2015 (Case R 102/2015-2), in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed the application for a declaration of invalidity based on a relative ground for invalidity;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Ms Ilona Biernacka-Hoba;










4.


Orders Ms Biernacka-Hoba to bear half of her own costs.






(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
Case T-150/17: Action brought on 8 March 2017 — Asolo v EUIPO — Red Bull (FLÜGEL)
Date: 2017-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017129EN.01003402.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/34





Action brought on 8 March 2017 — Asolo v EUIPO — Red Bull (FLÜGEL)
(Case T-150/17)
(2017/C 129/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Asolo LTD (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: W. Pors, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FLÜGEL’ — EU trade mark No 637 686

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2016 in Case R 282/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in its entirety;










—


dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity;










—


order EUIPO and Red Bull to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjuction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-747/14: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Merck v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (HEALTHPRESSO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2017-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, coffee, instant product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017144EN.01004301.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/43





Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Merck v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (HEALTHPRESSO)
(Case T-747/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - No need to adjudicate))
(2017/C 144/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and S. Cobet-Nüse, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 August 2014 (Case R 1880/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Société des Produits Nestlé SA and Merck KGaA.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Merck KGaA and Société des Produits Nestlé SA are ordered to bear their own costs and to, each, bear half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8342 — Mitsubishi Chemical Group/PTT Public Company Group/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-03-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, plastics industry








C_2017072EN.01000401.xml










8.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8342 — Mitsubishi Chemical Group/PTT Public Company Group/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 72/04)






1.


On 28 February 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Mitsubishi Chemical Group (‘MCC’, Japan) and PTT Public Company Group (‘PTT’, Thailand) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of PTTMCC Biochem Company Limited (the ‘JV’, Thailand) by way of a contract of management or any other means.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   MCC: a global chemical company,
—   PTT: a State-owned oil and gas company,
—   the JV: manufacturing and sales of specialised plastics.










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.8342 — Mitsubishi Chemical Group/PTT Public Company Group/JV, 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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-03-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017072EN.01000101.xml










8.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

7 March 2017
(2017/C 72/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0576 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,61 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4340 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86710 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5218 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0730 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,9443 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,52 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3075 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5384 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,8894 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3920 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4191 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2120 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5153 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4920 




KRW


South Korean won


1 215,71 




ZAR


South African rand


13,7038 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2976 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4090 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 115,79 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7038 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,237 




RUB


Russian rouble


61,3560 




THB


Thai baht


37,111 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2974 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,6124 




INR


Indian rupee


70,4700 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-121/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 8 March 2017 — Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) trading as ‘Mylan’ v Gilead Sciences Inc.
Date: 2017-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product, patent








C_2017151EN.01002102.xml










15.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/21





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 8 March 2017 — Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) trading as ‘Mylan’ v Gilead Sciences Inc.
(Case C-121/17)
(2017/C 151/28)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) trading as ‘Mylan’

Defendant: Gilead Sciences Inc.

Question referred

What are the criteria for deciding whether ‘the product is protected by a basic patent in force’ in Article 3(a) of Regulation No. 469/2009 (1)?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009, L 152, 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: 2017-03-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, solvent








C_2017072EN.01000201.xml










8.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/2





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 72/02)

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) 1332


1 March 2017


1,2-dichloroethane
EC No 203-458-1
CAS No 107-06-2


Laboratoires Expanscience, 10 Avenue de l’Arche, Regulatory affairs, 92419 Courbevoie, France


REACH/17/6/0


Use of 1,2-dichloroethane as process and extracting solvent in the manufacture of plant-derived pharmaceutical bioactive ingredients


22 November 2029


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 C-448/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Belgische Staat v Wereldhave Belgium Comm. VA, Wereldhave International NV, Wereldhave NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Parent companies and subsidiaries established in different Member States — Common system of taxation applicable — Corporation tax — Directive 90/435/EEC — Scope — Article 2(c) — Company subject to tax without the possibility of an option or of being exempt — Taxation at a zero rate)
Date: 2017-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: corporation tax, parent company, subsidiary, tax law, tax on investment income, tax relief








C_2017144EN.01000801.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/8





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Belgische Staat v Wereldhave Belgium Comm. VA, Wereldhave International NV, Wereldhave NV
(Case C-448/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Parent companies and subsidiaries established in different Member States - Common system of taxation applicable - Corporation tax - Directive 90/435/EEC - Scope - Article 2(c) - Company subject to tax without the possibility of an option or of being exempt - Taxation at a zero rate))
(2017/C 144/09)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Belgische Staat

Defendants: Wereldhave Belgium Comm. VA, Wereldhave International NV, Wereldhave NV

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States must be construed to the effect that Article 5(1) does not preclude legislation of a Member State whereby an advance tax on investment income is levied on dividends paid by a subsidiary established in that Member State to a fiscal investment institution established in another Member State which is subject to corporation tax at a zero rate, provided that all of its profits are paid to its shareholders, since such an institution does not constitute a ‘company of a Member State’ for the purposes of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.
Case T-47/17: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Yotrio Group v EUIPO (Affixing of a green ring to a support leg)
Date: 2017-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, metal furniture, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017202EN.01002804.xml










26.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 202/28





Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Yotrio Group v EUIPO (Affixing of a green ring to a support leg)
(Case T-47/17) (1)

(2017/C 202/47)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.
Case C-660/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 March 2017 — Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, TV2/Danmark A/S (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Article 106(2) TFEU — Measures taken by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish public service broadcaster TV2/Danmark — Compensation for the costs involved in the performance of public service obligations — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market)
Date: 2017-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, State aid, broadcasting, control of State aid, indemnification, public institution, services of general interest, television








C_2017144EN.01001101.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/11





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 March 2017 — Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, TV2/Danmark A/S
(Case C-660/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Article 106(2) TFEU - Measures taken by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish public service broadcaster TV2/Danmark - Compensation for the costs involved in the performance of public service obligations - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market))
(2017/C 144/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (represented by: M. Honoré and S.E. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg, advokater)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt and by L. Flynn and B. Stromsky, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, Agent, assisted by R. Holdgaard, advokat), TV2/Danmark A/S (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, advokat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and TV2/Danmark A/S;










3.


Declares that the Kingdom of Denmark is to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
Case T-504/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Rafhaelo Gutti v EUIPO — Transformados del Sur (CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA — Earlier national figurative mark representing two crossed flags — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017129EN.01001801.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/18





Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Rafhaelo Gutti v EUIPO — Transformados del Sur (CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA)
(Case T-504/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA - Earlier national figurative mark representing two crossed flags - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 129/29)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Rafhaelo Gutti, SL (Loja, Spain) (represented by: I. Sempere Massa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: B. Uriarte Valiente and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Transformados del Sur, SA (Seville, Spain) (represented by: M. Salas Martin, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2015 (Case R 2424/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Transformados del Sur and Rafhaelo Gutti.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Rafhaelo Gutti, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
Case T-527/12: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — DeMaCo Holland v Commission
Date: 2017-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: copyright, damages, designs and models, invitation to tender








C_2017144EN.01006002.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/60





Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — DeMaCo Holland v Commission
(Case T-527/12) (1)

(2017/C 144/82)
Language of the case: Dutch
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
Case C-321/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Luxembourg) — ArcelorMittal Rodange and Schifflange SA v State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading in the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 3(a) — Articles 11 and 12 — Cessation of activities of an installation — Surrender of unused allowances — Period from and including 2008 to 2012 — No compensation — Broad logic of the greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading scheme)
Date: 2017-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, cessation of trading, greenhouse gas, indemnification, reduction of gas emissions, tradeable emission permit








C_2017144EN.01000401.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/4





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Luxembourg) — ArcelorMittal Rodange and Schifflange SA v State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-321/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading in the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 3(a) - Articles 11 and 12 - Cessation of activities of an installation - Surrender of unused allowances - Period from and including 2008 to 2012 - No compensation - Broad logic of the greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading scheme))
(2017/C 144/04)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ArcelorMittal Rodange and Schifflange SA

Defendant: State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 219/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows the competent authority to require the surrender, without full or partial compensation, of unused allowances which have been improperly issued to an operator, as a result of the failure by the latter to comply with the obligation to inform the competent authority in due time of the cessation of the operation of an installation.
The allowances issued after an operator has ceased the activities performed in the installation to which those allowances relate, without informing the competent authority beforehand, cannot be classified as emissions ‘allowances’ within the meaning of Article 3(a) of Directive 2003/87, as amended by Regulation No 219/2009.


(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.