do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1847 of 12 October 2017 approving an amendment to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication (Dealurile Crișanei (PGI))
Date: 2017-10-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Romania, Satu Mare, designation of origin, flavoured wine, labelling, product designation, red wine, rosé wine, white wine








L_2017264EN.01000301.xml










13.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 264/3








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/1847
of 12 October 2017
         
approving an amendment to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication (Dealurile Crișanei (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The Commission has examined the application for the approval of an amendment to the specification for the Protected Geographical Indication ‘Dealurile Crișanei’, sent by Romania in accordance with Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(2)


The Commission has published the application for the approval of an amendment to the specification in the Official Journal of the European Union, as required by Article 97(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (2).












(3)


No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(4)


The amendment to the specification should therefore be approved in accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(5)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendment to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Dealurile Crișanei’ (PGI) is hereby approved.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 October 2017.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ C 197, 21.6.2017, p. 12.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8558 — DB/PSPIB/TIAA/Vantage Data Centres) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-10-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: communications industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, supplementary pension








C_2017341EN.01000101.xml










12.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8558 — DB/PSPIB/TIAA/Vantage Data Centres)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 341/01)
On 2 August 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 32017M8558. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8651 — Bosch/HASCO/ASCN) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-10-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2017341EN.01000801.xml










12.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8651 — Bosch/HASCO/ASCN)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 341/08)






1.


On 4 October 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Robert Bosch GmbH (‘Bosch’, Germany),










—


HUAYU Automotive Systems Company Ltd (‘HASCO’, China), controlled through SAIC Motor Corporation by the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of Shanghai Municipal Government,










—


Bosch Automobile Steering (Nanjing) Co., Ltd (‘ASCN’, China), controlled by Bosch.




Bosch and HASCO — through their joint venture Bosch HUAYU Steering Systems Co., Ltd — acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of ASCN.
The concentration is accomplished by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Bosch: globally active supplier of technology and services for the automotive industry, industrial technology, consumer goods and energy and building technology industries,
—   for HASCO: active in the development, production and sale of automotive components for a variety of car manufacturers,
—   for ASCN: active in the production of power-assisted steering gears, predominantly 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 the 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. The following reference should always be specified:
M.8651 — Bosch/HASCO/ASCN
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax: +32 22964301




Postal 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 T-703/17: Action brought on 12 October 2017 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi)
Date: 2017-10-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cows’ milk cheese, goats’ milk cheese, registered trade mark, sheep's milk cheese, trade-mark law








C_2017437EN.01003502.xml










18.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/35





Action brought on 12 October 2017 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi)
(Case T-703/17)
(2017/C 437/43)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: V. Marsland, Solicitor and S. Malynicz, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Papouis Dairies LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus)

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 in colours containing the word elements ‘Papouis Halloumi’ — Application for registration No 11 176 344

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2017 in Case R 2924/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8585 — Axis/Novae) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-10-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance, merger control








C_2017341EN.01000102.xml










12.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8585 — Axis/Novae)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 341/02)
On 5 October 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 32017M8585. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-316/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2017 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-554S) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SDC-554S — Earlier non-registered national word mark SDC-554S — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Evidence establishing the content of national law — Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(d) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2017-10-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic equipment, office equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017402EN.01002601.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/26





Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2017 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-554S)
(Case T-316/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SDC-554S - Earlier non-registered national word mark SDC-554S - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Evidence establishing the content of national law - Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(d) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2017/C 402/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s r. o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. von Donat, J. Lipinsky, J. Hagenberg, T. Hollerbach and C. Nitschke, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 (Case R 1575/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Moravia Consulting and Citizen Systems Europe

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Moravia Consulting spol. s r. o. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8567 — APG/Portfolio) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-10-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: business management, consultancy, economic concentration, merger control, pension scheme, transport infrastructure, urban infrastructure








C_2017341EN.01000201.xml










12.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8567 — APG/Portfolio)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 341/03)
On 16 August 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 32017M8567. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-318/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2017 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-444S) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SDC-444S — Earlier non-registered national word mark SDC-444S — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Evidence establishing the content of national law — Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(d) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2017-10-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic equipment, office equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017402EN.01002801.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/28





Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2017 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-444S)
(Case T-318/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SDC-444S - Earlier non-registered national word mark SDC-444S - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Evidence establishing the content of national law - Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(d) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2017/C 402/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s r. o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. von Donat, J. Lipinsky, J. Hagenberg, T. Hollerbach and C. Nitschke, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 (Case R 1573/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Moravia Consulting and Citizen Systems Europe

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Moravia Consulting spol. s r. o. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.
Case T-702/17: Action brought on 12 October 2017 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi)
Date: 2017-10-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cows’ milk cheese, goats’ milk cheese, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017424EN.01005301.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/53





Action brought on 12 October 2017 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi)
(Case T-702/17)
(2017/C 424/76)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: V. Marsland, Solicitor and S. Malynicz, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Papouis Dairies LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus)

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 in colours containing the word elements ‘Papouis Halloumi’ — Application for registration No 11 176 344

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2017 in Case R 2782/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-590/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 12 October 2017 — Henri Pouvin, Marie Dijoux, wife of Henri Pouvin v Electricité de France (EDF)
Date: 2017-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, married person, mortgage, real estate credit, sale, supply, unfair terms of contract, wage earner








C_2017437EN.01002001.xml










18.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 12 October 2017 — Henri Pouvin, Marie Dijoux, wife of Henri Pouvin v Electricité de France (EDF)
(Case C-590/17)
(2017/C 437/24)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Henri Pouvin, Marie Dijoux, wife of Henri Pouvin

Defendant: Electricité de France (EDF)

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 2 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a company such as EDF, where it grants an employee a mortgage loan covered by the scheme providing assistance for the purchase of a home, for which only members of the staff of that company are eligible, is acting as a seller or supplier?










2.


Is Article 2 of Directive 93/13/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that a company such as EDF, where it grants such a mortgage loan to the spouse of an employee who is not a member of the staff of that company but is jointly and severally liable as co-borrower, is acting as a seller or supplier?










3.


Is Article 2 of Directive 93/13/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that an employee of a company such as EDF who enters into an agreement with the company for such a loan is acting as a consumer?










4.


Is Article 2 of Directive 93/13/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the spouse of such an employee who enters into the same loan, not as an employee of the company but as a jointly and severally liable co-borrower, is acting as a consumer?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case T-317/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2017 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-888TII RU) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SDC-888TII RU — Earlier non-registered national word mark SDC-888TII RU — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Evidence establishing the content of national law — Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(d) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2017-10-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic equipment, office equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017402EN.01002701.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/27





Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2017 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-888TII RU)
(Case T-317/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SDC-888TII RU - Earlier non-registered national word mark SDC-888TII RU - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Evidence establishing the content of national law - Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(d) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2017/C 402/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s r. o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. von Donat, J. Lipinsky, J. Hagenberg, T. Hollerbach and C. Nitschke, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 (Case R 1566/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Moravia Consulting and Citizen Systems Europe

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Moravia Consulting spol. s r. o. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.