do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-214/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2017 — Sata v EUIPO (4600) (EU trade mark — Sign composed exclusively of numerals — Application for an EU word mark 4600 — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hand tool, paints and varnishes, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017283EN.01004101.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/41





Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2017 — Sata v EUIPO (4600)
(Case T-214/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Sign composed exclusively of numerals - Application for an EU word mark 4600 - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 283/62)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 (Case R 1942/2015-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign 4600 as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sata GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8484 — Gasunie/Vopak/Oiltanking/JV) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-07-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, gas industry, gas pipeline, merger control, storage of hydrocarbons








C_2017226EN.01000101.xml










14.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8484 — Gasunie/Vopak/Oiltanking/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 226/01)
On 6 July 2017, 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 32017M8484. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2017-07-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, office equipment, office supplies, printer








C_2017226EN.01000501.xml










14.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/5





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2017/C 226/04)
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 388, in the explanatory note to CN subheadings ‘9612 10 10 to 9612 10 80 Ribbons’, the following text is added:


‘These subheadings include products which are ready-to-use heat-sensitive inked ribbons, i.e. which are suitable to be used in a typewriter or any other machine incorporating a device for printing, without a further manufacturing process.
The length and width of inked ribbons that are ready-to-use are determined by the type of machine in which they are used.
Products which are not ready-to-use are excluded from these subheadings (generally, Sections VI and VII).’



(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.
Case T-194/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2017 — Klassisk investment v EUIPO (CLASSIC FINE FOODS) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark CLASSIC FINE FOODS — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, distributor, foodstuff, merchandising, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017283EN.01004002.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/40





Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2017 — Klassisk investment v EUIPO (CLASSIC FINE FOODS)
(Case T-194/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark CLASSIC FINE FOODS - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2017/C 283/61)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Klassisk investment Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2016 (Case R 1970/2015-1) concerning the international registration, designating the European Union, of the figurative mark CLASSIC FINE FOODS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Klassisk investment Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
Case T-437/17: Action brought on 14 July 2017 — Oy Karl Fazer v EUIPO — Kraft Foods Belgium Intellectual Property (MIGNON)
Date: 2017-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017300EN.01003401.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/34





Action brought on 14 July 2017 — Oy Karl Fazer v EUIPO — Kraft Foods Belgium Intellectual Property (MIGNON)
(Case T-437/17)
(2017/C 300/42)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Oy Karl Fazer Ab (Vantaa, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kraft Foods Belgium Intellectual Property (Halle, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MIGNON’ — Application for registration No 10 995 892

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2017 in Case R 1859/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


allow the trademark to be registered for all applied goods.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-275/16: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 14 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Comune di Balzola, Comune di Borgo San Martino, Comune di Camino, e.a. v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, in the presence of: Poste Italiane SpA
Date: 2017-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, delivery, freedom to provide services, harmonisation of standards, national law, postal service, provision of services, right of establishment, single market, universal service








C_2017374EN.01002401.xml










6.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/24





Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 14 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Comune di Balzola, Comune di Borgo San Martino, Comune di Camino, e.a. v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, in the presence of: Poste Italiane SpA
(Case C-275/16) (1)

(2017/C 374/34)
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.
Case C-425/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2017 — Günter Hartmann Tabakvertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Kempten
Date: 2017-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, marketing standard, tobacco, tobacco industry








C_2017347EN.01000801.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2017 — Günter Hartmann Tabakvertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Kempten
(Case C-425/17)
(2017/C 347/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Günter Hartmann Tabakvertrieb GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Stadt Kempten

Intervening party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 2(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU (1) be interpreted as meaning that only chewing tobacco products in the traditional sense constitute ‘products intended to be chewed’?










2.


Must Article 2(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU be interpreted as meaning that ‘products intended to be chewed’ are synonymous with ‘chewing tobacco’ within the meaning of Article 2(6) of the directive?










3.


Must the question of whether a tobacco product is ‘intended to be chewed’ within the meaning of Article 2(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU be determined on the basis of an objective consideration of the product and not on the basis of the information supplied by the manufacturer or the actual use by consumers?










4.


Must Article 2(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a tobacco product to be intended to be chewed, that product must in terms of its consistency and firmness be objectively suitable for being chewed and chewing it must result in the ingredients in the product being released?










5.


Must Article 2(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a tobacco product to be intended ‘to be chewed’, it is additionally necessary, but also sufficient, for the repeated exertion of light pressure on the tobacco product using the teeth or tongue to cause more of the ingredients in the product to be released than if the product is simply kept in the mouth?










6.


Or, in order for a tobacco product to be ‘intended to be chewed’, is it necessary that merely keeping the product in the mouth or sucking it does not cause ingredients to be released?










7.


Can the suitability of a tobacco product ‘to be chewed’, within the meaning of Article 2(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU, also be imparted by the method of dispensation outside the processed tobacco, such as a cellulose sachet?






(1)  Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC, OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1.
Case C-424/17 P: Appeal brought on 14 July 2017 by Vilislav Andreev Kaleychev against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22 June 2017 in Case T-58/17: Kaleychev v European Court of Human Rights
Date: 2017-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to the courts, jurisdiction, right to justice








C_2018022EN.01001601.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/16





Appeal brought on 14 July 2017 by Vilislav Andreev Kaleychev against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22 June 2017 in Case T-58/17: Kaleychev v European Court of Human Rights
(Case C-424/17 P)
(2018/C 022/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Vilislav Andreev Kaleychev (represented by: K. Mladenova, адвокат)

Other party to the proceedings: European Court of Human Rights
By order of 22 November 2017 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-07-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017226EN.01000401.xml










14.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

13 July 2017
(2017/C 226/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1417 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,17 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4367 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88215 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5430 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1011 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4518 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,120 




HUF


Hungarian forint


307,27 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2332 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5635 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,0763 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4770 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4564 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9167 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5578 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5722 




KRW


South Korean won


1 298,70 




ZAR


South African rand


15,0961 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7443 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4050 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 238,84 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9093 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,720 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,4750 




THB


Thai baht


38,761 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6733 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,3212 




INR


Indian rupee


73,5825 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-454/17: Action brought on 14 July 2017 — ‘Pro NGO!’ v Commission
Date: 2017-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, EU financing, European Anti-fraud Office, accountant, audit, disclosure of information, project evaluation, provision of documents, rights of the defence, tendering








C_2017330EN.01001101.xml










2.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/11





Action brought on 14 July 2017 — ‘Pro NGO!’ v Commission
(Case T-454/17)
(2017/C 330/13)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant:‘Pro NGO!’ (Non-Governmental-Organisations/Nicht-Regierungs-Organisationen) e.V. (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Scheid, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision ARES (2017) 2484833 of 16 May 2017;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging incomplete assessment of the facts relevant for the determination of the case






—


The applicant complains that the defendant failed to take into account either the fact that the external auditor, Ernst & Young, belatedly corrected its original statement or the fact that the Project Coordinator declared that she had submitted the documents herself.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the assessment of the facts of the case contradicts other reports






—


Further, the applicant claims that the defendant erred in its assessment of whether the applicant had complied with its contractual obligations, which contradicts the statements contained in the Final Audit Report and the OLAF Report.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of defence






—


Lastly, the applicant submits that it was only several years after the proceedings had been brought that it was granted access to crucial documents, which, it maintains, had been partially redacted.










—


The applicant also maintains that it had no legal obligation to tender or to observe strictly the tendering rules in the project.










—


In addition, the applicant asserts that it bears no liability for the actions of the European Union’s project partner.
Case T-55/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2017 — Certified Angus Beef v EUIPO — Certified Australian Angus Beef (CERTIFIED AUSTRALIAN ANGUS BEEF) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark CERTIFIED AUSTRALIAN ANGUS BEEF — Earlier well-known figurative and word marks SINCE 1978 CERTIFIED ANGUS BEEF BRAND and CERTIFIED ANGUS BEEF BRAND — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beef, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017283EN.01003102.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/31





Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2017 — Certified Angus Beef v EUIPO — Certified Australian Angus Beef (CERTIFIED AUSTRALIAN ANGUS BEEF)
(Case T-55/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark CERTIFIED AUSTRALIAN ANGUS BEEF - Earlier well-known figurative and word marks SINCE 1978 CERTIFIED ANGUS BEEF BRAND and CERTIFIED ANGUS BEEF BRAND - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 283/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Certified Angus Beef LLC (Wooster, Ohio, United States) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Certified Australian Angus Beef Pty Ltd (Surrey Hills, Australia)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 October 2014 (Case R 662/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Certified Angus Beef and Certified Australian Angus Beef.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Certified Angus Beef LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8422 — ChemChina/AKC/JVs) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-07-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, electronics industry, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, research and development, textile industry, wholesale trade








C_2017226EN.01001801.xml










14.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/18





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8422 — ChemChina/AKC/JVs)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 226/06)






1.


On 6 July 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings China National Bluestar Group Co. Ltd (‘Bluestar Group’, China), belonging to China National Chemical Corporation (‘ChemChina’, China), and Asahi Kasei Corporation (‘AKC’, Japan) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created company constituting a joint venture (the ‘JV’) by way of purchase of shares and contribution of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for ChemChina: production of a wide range of chemical products, globally;
—   for AKC: production of fibres, chemical products, electronics materials, pharmaceutical products, medical devices, and housing, globally;
—   for the JV: two joint ventures active respectively in the research, development and production, and in the marketing and sale of a number of chemical products in China.










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 the 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.8422 — ChemChina/AKC/JVs, 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.
Case C-663/15: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 14 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Umweltverband WWF Österreich v Landeshauptmann von Tirol
Date: 2017-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, administrative court, administrative procedure, environmental impact, environmental protection, water resources








C_2017374EN.01002302.xml










6.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/23





Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 14 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Umweltverband WWF Österreich v Landeshauptmann von Tirol
(Case C-663/15) (1)

(2017/C 374/33)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.