do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-129/18: Action brought on 01 March 2018 — HMV (Brands) v EUIPO — Our Price Records (OUR PRICE)
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet site, advertising, electronic commerce, registered trade mark, retail trade, software, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2018161EN.01005402.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/54





Action brought on 01 March 2018 — HMV (Brands) v EUIPO — Our Price Records (OUR PRICE)
(Case T-129/18)
(2018/C 161/62)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: HMV (Brands) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Hicks, and N. Zweck, Barristers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Our Price Records Ltd (London)

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 containing the word elements ‘OUR PRICE’ — Application for registration No 13 636 998

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 838/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs;










—


order Our Price Records Limited to pay the costs (if it intervenes in this case);
AND EITHER










—


allow HMV’s opposition in its entirety
OR










—


remit the case for consideration by EUIPO in light of the annulment of the contested decision.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 2017/1001.
Joined Cases C-412/16 P and C-413/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2018 — Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Application for registration of EU figurative marks ocean beach club ibiza and ocean ibiza — Earlier national figurative marks OC ocean club and OC ocean club Ibiza — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion)
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, leisure, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018142EN.01000602.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/6





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2018 — Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Joined Cases C-412/16 P and C-413/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Application for registration of EU figurative marks ocean beach club ibiza and ocean ibiza - Earlier national figurative marks OC ocean club and OC ocean club Ibiza - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion))
(2018/C 142/08)
Language of the cases: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero and F. Miazzetto, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeals;










2.


Orders Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.
Case T-143/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Société générale v ECB
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank deposit, banking supervision, credit institution, guarantee, payment








C_2018161EN.01005601.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/56





Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Société générale v ECB
(Case T-143/18)
(2018/C 161/64)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Société générale (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Article 4 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/174 of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of its Annex A, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;










—


order the ECB to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging there is no legal basis for the adoption of the contested decision. According to the applicant, the ECB has no jurisdiction to impose a prudential requirement of general scope and has not conducted an individual and detailed assessment of the applicant’s situation as required by the applicable legislation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in that the ECB wrongly interpreted the EU legislation establishing the possibility for credit institutions to use irrevocable payment commitments and, consequently, rendered those provisions ineffective.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error in the assessment of the risks allegedly posed by the irrevocable payment commitments having regard to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p 63).










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons, in so far as the ECB is, it is claimed, subject to an enhanced obligation to state reasons and the contested decision was inadequately reasoned.
Case C-3/18 P: Order of the President of the Court of 1 March 2018 — Confédération européenne des associations d’horlogers-réparateurs (CEAHR) v European Commission, LVMH Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton SA, Rolex, SA, The Swatch Group SA
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: clock and watch industry, competition policy, dominant position, industrial counterfeiting, luxury products industry, maintenance, spare part, supply








C_2018190EN.01002103.xml










4.6.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/21





Order of the President of the Court of 1 March 2018 — Confédération européenne des associations d’horlogers-réparateurs (CEAHR) v European Commission, LVMH Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton SA, Rolex, SA, The Swatch Group SA
(Case C-3/18 P) (1)

(2018/C 190/39)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
Case T-149/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Arkéa Direct Bank and Others v ECB
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank deposit, banking supervision, credit institution, guarantee, payment








C_2018161EN.01005802.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/58





Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Arkéa Direct Bank and Others v ECB
(Case T-149/18)
(2018/C 161/68)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Arkéa Direct Bank (Puteaux, France), Caisse de Bretagne de Crédit Mutuel Agricole (Le Relecq Kerhuon, France), Crédit Mutuel Arkéa (Le Relecq Kerhuon), Crédit foncier et communal d’Alsace et de Lorraine-banque (Strasbourg, France), Fédéral Finance (Le Relecq Kerhuon), Arkéa Home Loans SFH (Brest, France), Arkéa Banking Services (Paris, France), Arkéa Public Sector SCF (Le Relecq Kerhuon), Arkéa Banque Entreprises et Institutionnels (Le Relecq Kerhuon), Keytrade Bank Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Article 8 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of 19 December 2017, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;










—


order the ECB to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-143/18, Societe Generale v ECB.
Case C-297/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România (CMVRO) v Autoritatea Naţională Sanitară Veterinară şi pentru Siguranţa Alimentelor (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — National legislation limiting the right to retail, use and administer veterinary medicinal, anti-parasitic and organic products to veterinary practitioners — Freedom of establishment — Requirement that the share capital of establishments retailing veterinary medicinal products be held only by veterinary practitioners — Protection of public health — Proportionality)
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: exclusive distribution agreement, organic product, principle of proportionality, public health, retail trade, right of establishment, veterinarian, veterinary medicinal product, veterinary medicine








C_2018142EN.01000401.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/4





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România (CMVRO) v Autoritatea Naţională Sanitară Veterinară şi pentru Siguranţa Alimentelor
(Case C-297/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/123/EC - Services in the internal market - National legislation limiting the right to retail, use and administer veterinary medicinal, anti-parasitic and organic products to veterinary practitioners - Freedom of establishment - Requirement that the share capital of establishments retailing veterinary medicinal products be held only by veterinary practitioners - Protection of public health - Proportionality))
(2018/C 142/04)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România (CMVRO)

Defendant: Autoritatea Naţională Sanitară Veterinară şi pentru Siguranţa Alimentelor

Operative part of the judgment







(1)


Article 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market is to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which veterinary practitioners have an exclusive right to retail and use organic products, special purpose anti-parasitic products and veterinary medicinal products.










(2)


Article 15 of Directive 2006/123 is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which shares in establishments retailing veterinary medicinal products must be owned exclusively by one or more veterinary practitioners.






(1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/399 of 1 March 2018 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Beelitzer Spargel’ (PGI))
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Brandenburg, Germany, designation of origin, labelling, perennial vegetable, product designation








L_2018072EN.01001201.xml










15.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 72/12








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/399
of 1 March 2018
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Beelitzer Spargel’ (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Germany's application to register the name ‘Beelitzer Spargel’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Beelitzer Spargel’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Beelitzer Spargel’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. — Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


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, 1 March 2018.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 388, 17.11.2017, p. 9.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).