do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8767 — CDPQ/Hyperion Insurance Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, insurance company, investment company, merger control, reinsurance, supplementary pension








C_2018064EN.01001701.xml










20.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/17





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8767 — CDPQ/Hyperion Insurance Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 64/07)






1.


On 12 February 2018, 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:






—


Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (‘CDPQ’, Canada),










—


Hyperion Insurance Group Limited (‘Hyperion’, UK), ultimately controlled by General Atlantic Hawthorn BV (‘GA’, The Netherlands), part of General Atlantic Group (‘GA Group’, United States), and certain natural persons.




CDPQ, together with GA and certain natural persons, acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Hyperion.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for CDPQ: long-term institutional investor that manages funds for public and private pension and insurance funds, active worldwide,
—   for Hyperion: insurance and reinsurance broker, and underwriting agency, active worldwide,
—   for GA: investment holding company, part of GA Group, a private equity firm active worldwide.










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.8767 — CDPQ/Hyperion Insurance Group
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-260/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 February 2018 — Iberdrola v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Aid scheme provided for under Spanish tax legislation — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)
Date: 2018-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, amortisation, control of State aid, corporation tax, goodwill, shareholding, tax relief








C_2018134EN.01002101.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/21





Order of the President of the General Court of 20 February 2018 — Iberdrola v Commission
(Case T-260/15 R)
((Application for interim measures - State aid - Aid scheme provided for under Spanish tax legislation - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
(2018/C 134/28)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Iberdrola, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado and J. Domínguez Pérez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/314 of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.35550 (13/C) (ex 13/NN) (ex 12/CP) implemented by Spain — Scheme for the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions (OJ 2015 L 56, p. 38).

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is rejected.










2.


The order of 24 November 2017, Iberdrola v Commission (T-260/15 R), is revoked.










3.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-45/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2018 — Kwang Yang Motor v EUIPO — Schmidt (CK1) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CK1 — Earlier EU figurative mark CK — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cycle and motorcycle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018123EN.01001801.xml










9.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/18





Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2018 — Kwang Yang Motor v EUIPO — Schmidt (CK1)
(Case T-45/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CK1 - Earlier EU figurative mark CK - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 123/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd (Kaohsiung, Taiwan) (represented by: A. González Hähnlein and A. Kleinheyer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Udo Schmidt (Reken, Germany) (represented by: G. Rother and J. Vogtmeier, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2016 (Case R 2193/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Schmidt and Kwang Yang Motor.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.
Case T-120/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (500 PANORAMICZNYCH)
Date: 2018-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, serial publication, trade-mark law








C_2018142EN.01006101.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/61





Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (500 PANORAMICZNYCH)
(Case T-120/18)
(2018/C 142/79)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o. o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ — Application for registration No 15 299 712

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2201/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark;




and/or






—


declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;




in the alternative






—


annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 712), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal;




and/or






—


declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation 2017/1001.
Case C-133/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratrif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 20 February 2018 — Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics
Date: 2018-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, appeal, establishment, limitation of legal proceedings, principle of proportionality, tax rebate, taxpayer








C_2018166EN.01002001.xml










14.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratrif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 20 February 2018 — Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics
(Case C-133/18)
(2018/C 166/26)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal Administratrif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Question referred

Must Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it creates a limitation rule which has the effect that a taxable person of a Member State which applies for a refund of value added tax from a Member State in which it is not established is not able to regularise its refund application before a tax court if it has not complied with the time limit for replying to a request for information made by the administration in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of that article, or, on the contrary, as meaning that that taxable person may, in the context of the right of appeal laid down in Article 23 of the directive, and having regard to the principles of neutrality and proportionality of VAT, regularise its application before the tax court?


(1)  Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State (OJ 2008 L 44, p. 23).
Case T-121/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (1000 PANORAMICZNYCH)
Date: 2018-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, serial publication, trade-mark law








C_2018142EN.01006201.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/62





Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (1000 PANORAMICZNYCH)
(Case T-121/18)
(2018/C 142/80)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o. o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ — Application for registration No 15 299 671

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2208/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark;




and/or






—


declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;




in the alternative






—


annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 671), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal;




and/or






—


declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation 2017/1001.
Case T-107/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Aytekin v EUIPO — Dienne Salotti (Dienne)
Date: 2018-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, furniture industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018134EN.01003801.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/38





Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Aytekin v EUIPO — Dienne Salotti (Dienne)
(Case T-107/18)
(2018/C 134/54)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant(s): Erkan Aytekin (Ankara, Turkey) (represented by: V. Martín Santos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dienne Salotti SRL a socio unico (Altamura, Italy)

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: Application for EU figurative mark Dienne — Application for registration No 15 080 302

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 1444/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order Applicant/Intervener and/or the EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant in connection with this appeal, and all procedural costs generated by EUIPO decisions.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.
Case T-98/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Multifit Tiernahrungs v EUIPO (MULTIFIT)
Date: 2018-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, domestic animal, food supplement, pet food, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2018134EN.01003302.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/33





Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Multifit Tiernahrungs v EUIPO (MULTIFIT)
(Case T-98/18)
(2018/C 134/48)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark MULTIFIT — Application No 15 996 291

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2017 in Case R 846/2017-1

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 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.
Case T-117/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (200 PANORAMICZNYCH)
Date: 2018-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, serial publication, trade-mark law








C_2018142EN.01005802.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/58





Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (200 PANORAMICZNYCH)
(Case T-117/18)
(2018/C 142/76)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ — Application for registration No 15 299 688

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2194/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark;




and/or






—


declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;




in the alternative






—


annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 688), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal;




and/or






—


declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation 2017/1001.
Case T-106/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Laverana v EUIPO — Agroecopark (VERA GREEN)
Date: 2018-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, paper, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, toiletries, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2018142EN.01005801.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/58





Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Laverana v EUIPO — Agroecopark (VERA GREEN)
(Case T-106/18)
(2018/C 142/75)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co.KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Agroecopark (Majadahonda, Spain)

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 word mark VERA GREEN — Application for registration No 15 068 646

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2017 in Case R 982/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8827 — Apollo Management/CBR) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: clothing industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, miscellaneous industries, retail trade, wholesale trade








C_2018064EN.01002001.xml










20.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/20





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8827 — Apollo Management/CBR)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 64/09)






1.


On 13 February 2018, 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:






—


Apollo Capital Management, LP (‘Apollo’, United States of America),










—


CBR Fashion Holding GmbH (‘CBR’, Germany).




Apollo acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of CBR.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Apollo: management of several investment funds that invest globally in companies and debt issued by companies in various businesses such as chemical, cruise line, hospital, security, financial services and glass packaging,
—   for CBR: design, wholesale and retail of women’s apparel.










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.8827 — Apollo Management/CBR
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.