do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-418/16 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 — mobile.de GmbH, formerly mobile.international GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Rezon OOD (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 15(1) — Article 57(2) and (3) — Article 64 — Article 76(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 22(2) — Rule 40(6) — Invalidity proceedings — Applications for a declaration of invalidity based on an earlier national trade mark — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Burden of proof — Rejection of the applications — Taking into account by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of new evidence — Annulment of the decisions of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO — Referral — Consequences)
Date: 2018-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet site, advertising, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018142EN.01000701.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/7





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 — mobile.de GmbH, formerly mobile.international GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Rezon OOD
(Case C-418/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 15(1) - Article 57(2) and (3) - Article 64 - Article 76(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 22(2) - Rule 40(6) - Invalidity proceedings - Applications for a declaration of invalidity based on an earlier national trade mark - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Burden of proof - Rejection of the applications - Taking into account by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of new evidence - Annulment of the decisions of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO - Referral - Consequences))
(2018/C 142/09)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: mobile.de GmbH, formerly mobile.international GmbH (represented by: T. Lührig, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent), Rezon OOD (represented by: P. Kanchev, advokat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders mobile.de GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Rezon ODD.






(1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8775 — Shell/Impello) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy industry, energy supply, hydrocarbon, merger control, oil industry, petrochemicals, renewable energy








C_2018075EN.01000101.xml










28.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 75/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8775 — Shell/Impello)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 75/01)
On 15 February 2018, 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 32018M8775. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-157/18: Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Caprice Schuhproduktion v Commission
Date: 2018-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, footwear industry, import (EU), institutional balance (EU), originating product








C_2018142EN.01006901.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/69





Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Caprice Schuhproduktion v Commission
(Case T-157/18)
(2018/C 142/88)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Caprice Schuhproduktion GmbH & Co. KG (Pirmasens, Germany) (represented by: S. De Knop, B. Natens and A. Willems, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare the application admissible;










—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law. The pleas put forward are identical to those put forward in Case T-127/18, Cortina and FLA Europe v Commission.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8810 — Ardian/DRT) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, wood industry








C_2018075EN.01000301.xml










28.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 75/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8810 — Ardian/DRT)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 75/03)






1.


On 21 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:






—


Ardian France, SA (‘Ardian’, France),










—


Dérivés Résiniques et Terpéniques, SA (‘DRT’, France).




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










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Ardian: private equity investment through portfolio companies in a variety of economic sectors in Europe, Northern America and Asia,
—   for DRT: manufacture of derivatives from pine resin.










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.8810 — Ardian/DRT
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 C-577/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scope — Article 2(1) — Annex I — Activities subject to the trading scheme — Production of polymers — Use of heat supplied by a third-party installation — Application for free allocation of emission allowances — Period 2013-2020)
Date: 2018-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU emission allowance, environmental protection, greenhouse gas, polymer, reduction of gas emissions, tradeable emission permit








C_2018142EN.01000902.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/9





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-577/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scope - Article 2(1) - Annex I - Activities subject to the trading scheme - Production of polymers - Use of heat supplied by a third-party installation - Application for free allocation of emission allowances - Period 2013-2020))
(2018/C 142/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of 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 Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that an installation for the production of polymers, in particular the polymer polycarbonate, such as the installation at issue in the main proceedings, which obtains the heat needed for that production from a third-party installation, does not fall within the scope of the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme established by that directive, since it does not generate direct CO2 emissions.


(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
Case T-764/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 —Paulini v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Remuneration — Annual salary and bonus review — Lawfulness of the guidelines — Calculation method — Taking into account of sickness leave — Taking into account of activities of a staff representative — Principle of non-discrimination)
Date: 2018-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, equal treatment, remuneration of work, sick leave, workers' representation








C_2018142EN.01004602.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/46





Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 —Paulini v ECB
(Case T-764/16) (1)

((Civil service - ECB staff - Remuneration - Annual salary and bonus review - Lawfulness of the guidelines - Calculation method - Taking into account of sickness leave - Taking into account of activities of a staff representative - Principle of non-discrimination))
(2018/C 142/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Jörn Paulini (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented initially by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, subsequently by: L. Levi and A. Tymen and finally by: L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and D. Camilleri Podestà, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, firstly, the annulment of the decision of the ECB, sent to the applicant on 15 December 2015 and amended on 10 February 2016, concerning the 2015 annual salary and bonus review and, secondly, compensation for the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Jörn Paulini to bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank.






(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
Case C-518/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — ‘ZPT’ AD v Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria, Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 — Article 35 TFEU — De minimis aid in the form of tax relief — National legislation excluding investments in the production of goods intended for export from the benefit of that tax relief)
Date: 2018-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, export (EU), investment aid, tax relief








C_2018142EN.01000702.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/7





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — ‘ZPT’ AD v Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria, Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite
(Case C-518/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 - Article 35 TFEU - De minimis aid in the form of tax relief - National legislation excluding investments in the production of goods intended for export from the benefit of that tax relief))
(2018/C 142/10)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘ZPT’ AD

Defendants: Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria, Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

Operative part of the judgment







1)


Consideration of the third part of the third question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 1(1)(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles [107 TFEU and 108 TFEU] to de minimis aid.










2)


Article 1(1)(d) of Regulation No 1998/2006 must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which exclude investments in assets used for export-related activities from the benefit of tax relief constituting de minimis aid.






(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.
Case C-289/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Maakohus — Estonia) — Collect Inkasso OÜ and Others v Rain Aint and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European enforcement order for uncontested claims — Requirements for certification — Minimum standards for uncontested claims procedures — Rights of the debtor — No indication of the address of the institution to which a notice may be addressed contesting the claim or before which an appeal against the decision may be brought)
Date: 2018-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, debt, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction








C_2018142EN.01001501.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/15





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Maakohus — Estonia) — Collect Inkasso OÜ and Others v Rain Aint and Others
(Case C-289/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European enforcement order for uncontested claims - Requirements for certification - Minimum standards for uncontested claims procedures - Rights of the debtor - No indication of the address of the institution to which a notice may be addressed contesting the claim or before which an appeal against the decision may be brought))
(2018/C 142/20)
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tartu Maakohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Collect Inkasso OÜ, ITM Inkasso OÜ, Bigbank AS

Defendants: Rain Aint, Lauri Palm, Raiko Oikimus, Egle Noor, Artjom Konjarov

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(a) and Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that a court judgment delivered without the debtor having been informed of the address of the court to which to respond or before which to appear, or, as appropriate, before which an appeal can be lodged against such a decision, cannot be certified as a European Enforcement Order.


(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Case T-843/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO Digital Print Group O. Schimek (Foto Paradies) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Foto Paradies — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, photographic industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018142EN.01004701.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/47





Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO Digital Print Group O. Schimek (Foto Paradies)
(Case T-843/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Foto Paradies - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 142/62)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: T. Strack and O. Bludovsky, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, R. Manea and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Digital Print Group O. Schimek GmbH (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: L. Petri and M. Gilch, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 September 2016 (R 1194/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Digital Print Group O. Schimek and dm-drogerie markt.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
Case T-140/18: Action brought on 28 February 2018 — LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs v EUIPO (LITECRAFT)
Date: 2018-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical equipment, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018161EN.01005501.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/55





Action brought on 28 February 2018 — LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs v EUIPO (LITECRAFT)
(Case T-140/18)
(2018/C 161/63)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH (Ibbenbüren, Germany) (represented by: R. Plegge, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘LITECRAFT’ — Application for registration No 15 282 635

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2018 in Case R 699/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 of 1 June 2017 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information, amending Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1230/2012 and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 (OJ L 175, 7.7.2017)
Date: 2018-02-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: access to information, approval, commercial vehicle, consumption, fuel, general mechanical engineering, greenhouse gas, motor car, motor vehicle pollution, reduction of gas emissions




L_2018056EN.01006601.xml










28.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 56/66







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 of 1 June 2017 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information, amending Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1230/2012 and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 175 of 7 July 2017
)


On page 135, Annex IIIA, Appendix 2, point 4.3.5(c)(ii):
for:


                  ‘
                  


                  ’,

read:


                  ‘
                  


                  ’.

On page 178, Annex IIIA, Appendix 7a, point 3.1.2:
for:


                  ‘
                  

, 6, i = 1 to Nt

                  ’,

read:


                  ‘
                  

, i = 1 to Nt

                  ’.

On page 434, Sub-Annex 2 to Annex XXI, point 3.5(b):
for:







‘(b)


Pavailable_i,i ≥ Prequired,j’,





read:







‘(b)


Pavailable_i,j ≥ Prequired,j’.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-02-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018075EN.01000201.xml










28.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 75/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

27 February 2018
(2018/C 75/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2301 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,77 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4460 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88400 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,0800 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1539 




ISK


Iceland króna


123,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6290 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,398 




HUF


Hungarian forint


313,97 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1670 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6575 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,6629 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5698 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5647 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,6272 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6918 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6235 




KRW


South Korean won


1 318,51 




ZAR


South African rand


14,3380 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7665 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4452 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 818,89 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8072 




PHP


Philippine peso


64,286 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,7975 




THB


Thai baht


38,613 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,9831 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,0305 




INR


Indian rupee


79,8030 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.