do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-542/17 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 September 2018 — Allstate Insurance Company v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — Application for registration of the word mark DRIVEWISE — Dismissal of the application — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(c) — Article 7(2) — Article 75 — Descriptive character — Neologism composed of elements each of which is descriptive of the characteristics of the goods or services concerned — Intended purpose of the goods or services — Distortion — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2018-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, goods and services, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2018399EN.01001401.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/14






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 September 2018 — Allstate Insurance Company v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-542/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - EU trade mark - Application for registration of the word mark DRIVEWISE - Dismissal of the application - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(c) - Article 7(2) - Article 75 - Descriptive character - Neologism composed of elements each of which is descriptive of the characteristics of the goods or services concerned - Intended purpose of the goods or services - Distortion - Duty to state reasons))
(2018/C 399/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Allstate Insurance Company (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: K. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.










2.


Allstate Insurance Company shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8842 — Tele2/Com Hem Holding) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic commerce, investment company, merger control, provision of services, retail trade, telecommunications, television








C_2018321EN.01000501.xml










11.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 321/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8842 — Tele2/Com Hem Holding)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 321/04)

1.   
On 3 September 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:






—


Kinnevik AB (‘Kinnevik’, Sweden),










—


Tele2 AB (‘Tele2’, Sweden), controlled by Kinnevik,










—


Com Hem Holding AB (‘Com Hem Holding’, Sweden).




Tele2 acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Com Hem Holding.
The concentration is accomplished by way of a statutory merger.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Kinnevik: private equity investment in various companies active primarily in telecommunications, e-commerce, entertainment and financial services,
—   for Tele2: provider of fixed and mobile telecommunications services in Sweden,
—   for Com Hem Holding: provider of fixed telecommunications and retail TV services in Sweden.


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.



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.8842 — Tele2/Com Hem Holding
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





E-mail: 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’).
Case T-371/18: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Reiner Stemme Utility Air Systems v AESA
Date: 2018-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: aeronautical industry, air safety, aircraft, equal treatment, invoicing, powers of the institutions (EU), tax, transport authorisation








C_2018399EN.01005802.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/58






Order of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Reiner Stemme Utility Air Systems v AESA
(Case T-371/18) (1)

(2018/C 399/75)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2016.
Case C-569/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 September 2018 — Caseificio Cirigliana Srl and Others v Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali and Others
Date: 2018-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Campania, consumer information, designation of origin, free competition, labelling, less-favoured agricultural area, product designation, quality control of agricultural products, soft cheese








C_2018436EN.01002402.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 September 2018 — Caseificio Cirigliana Srl and Others v Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali and Others
(Case C-569/18)
(2018/C 436/34)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants at first instance and appellants in the present proceedings: Caseificio Cirigliana Srl, Mail Srl, Sorì Italia Srl

Defendants at first instance and respondents in the present proceedings: Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero della Salute

Question referred

Should Articles 3, 26, 32, 40 and 41 of the TFEU and Articles 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Regulation 1151/2012/EU (1) on the Protected Designation of Origin, which require Member States to guarantee both free competition in respect of goods within the European Union and protection for quality schemes to support less favoured agricultural areas, be interpreted as precluding a restriction being imposed under national law (Article 4 of Decree Law No 91 of 24 June 2014, as converted into law by Law No 116 of 11 August 2014) on the production of PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana, which is to be made in factories dedicated exclusively to such production, in which the holding and storage of milk originating from farms not included in the monitoring system for PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana is prohibited?


(1)  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 (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).
Case T-654/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Foshan Lihua Ceramic v Commission (Dumping — Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China — Article 11(3) and (5) and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 11(3) and (5) and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) — Rejection of a request for a partial interim review, limited to dumping aspects, of the definitive anti-dumping duty established by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 — Lasting change in circumstances — Sampling — Individual examination — No cooperation in the investigation that led to the adoption of the definitive measures)
Date: 2018-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, building materials, ceramics, import (EU), originating product








C_2018381EN.01002001.xml










22.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/20






Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Foshan Lihua Ceramic v Commission
(Case T-654/16) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China - Article 11(3) and (5) and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 11(3) and (5) and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Rejection of a request for a partial interim review, limited to dumping aspects, of the definitive anti-dumping duty established by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 - Lasting change in circumstances - Sampling - Individual examination - No cooperation in the investigation that led to the adoption of the definitive measures))
(2018/C 381/22)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd. (Foshan City, China) (represented by: B. Spinoit and D. Philippe, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França, T. Maxian Rusche, N. Kuplewatzky and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 4259 final of 11 July 2016 rejecting a request for a partial interim review limited to dumping aspects with regard to the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.
Corrigendum to notice of open competition — EPSO/AST-SC/07/18 — Armed security and protection officers (SC 1/SC 2) (OJ C 305 A, 30.8.2018)
Date: 2018-09-11
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: armed forces, assistant, competition (EU), job vacancy, public safety, recruitment




CA2018321EN.01000101.xml










11.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 321/1






Corrigendum to notice of open competition — EPSO/AST-SC/07/18 — Armed security and protection officers (SC 1/SC 2)
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 305 A of 30 August 2018
)
(2018/C 321 A/01)
On page 8, Annex II:







for:










‘1.


Professional experience of at least 3 years and obtained over the last 6 years, in the field of armed protection/intervention within governmental, national and/or international public security services, including within private security companies providing services for international public organisations, permanent representations or diplomatic missions. To be taken into account, this experience must be in addition to the experience required to access the competition.’,
















read:










‘1.


Professional experience of at least 3 years and obtained over the last 8 years, in the field of armed protection/intervention within governmental, national and/or international public security services. To be taken into account, this experience must be in addition to the experience required to access the competition.’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9074 — Total/Pont Sur Sambre Power and Toul Power) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, energy production, energy supply, gas industry, gas supply, merger control, power plant, renewable energy








C_2018345EN.01000201.xml










27.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 345/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9074 — Total/Pont Sur Sambre Power and Toul Power)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 345/03)
On 11 September 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 32018M9074. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-776/17: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Medora Therapeutics v EUIPO — Biohealth Italia (LITHOREN)
Date: 2018-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018399EN.01005801.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/58






Order of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Medora Therapeutics v EUIPO — Biohealth Italia (LITHOREN)
(Case T-776/17) (1)

(2018/C 399/74)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.
Case T-536/18: Action brought on 11 September 2018 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (fitness)
Date: 2018-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cereal product, cereals, foodstuff, human nutrition, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018399EN.01004701.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/47






Action brought on 11 September 2018 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (fitness)
(Case T-536/18)
(2018/C 399/62)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht, C. Elkemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Food SA (Păntășești, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark fitness — European Union trade mark No 2 470 326

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2018 in Case R 755/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


dismiss the appeal against the Cancellation Division’s decision 5802 C of 18 October 2013;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-09-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018321EN.01000401.xml










11.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 321/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

10 September 2018
(2018/C 321/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1571 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,54 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4579 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89340 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4683 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1267 




ISK


Iceland króna


129,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7030 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,648 




HUF


Hungarian forint


325,08 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3169 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6308 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,4763 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6257 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5268 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0831 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7706 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5966 




KRW


South Korean won


1 306,49 




ZAR


South African rand


17,5532 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9413 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4203 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 187,56 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8021 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,397 




RUB


Russian rouble


81,2688 




THB


Thai baht


38,017 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,7135 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,3173 




INR


Indian rupee


83,8375 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8991 — Alphabet/ResMed/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cloud computing, economic concentration, medical device, merger control, research body








C_2018321EN.01000801.xml










11.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 321/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8991 — Alphabet/ResMed/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 321/06)

1.   
On 4 September 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:






—


Verily Life Sciences LLC (‘Verily’, United States), belonging to Alphabet Inc. (‘Alphabet’, United States),










—


ResMed Inc. (‘ResMed’, United States).




ResMed and Verily acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created joint venture that will study the health and financial impacts of undiagnosed and untreated sleep apnea and other breathing related sleep disorders, and develop software solutions that enable health care providers to more efficiently identify, diagnose, treat and manage individuals with sleep apnea and other breathing related sleep disorders.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Verily: research organisation, formerly Google Life Sciences. Google is the largest business controlled by Alphabet,
—   for ResMed: development, manufacturing, distribution and marketing of medical devices and cloud-based software applications that diagnose, treat and manage respiratory disorders and other chronic diseases.


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.8991 — Alphabet/ResMed/JV
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-568/18 P: Appeal brought on 11 September 2018 by Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2018 in Case T-643/13, Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH v European Commission
Date: 2018-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, environmental protection, greenhouse gas, industrial plant, industrial pollution, reduction of gas emissions








C_2019016EN.01002901.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/29






Appeal brought on 11 September 2018 by Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2018 in Case T-643/13, Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH v European Commission
(Case C-568/18 P)
(2019/C 16/36)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and D. Jacob, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 in Case T-643/13;










—


annul the Commission’s decision of 15 September 2013 with reference GestDem 2013/1504;










—


in the alternative, set aside the General Court’s judgment and refer the matter back to the General Court.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The applicant relies on the following grounds of appeal:






1.


The General Court misconstrued the requirements set out in Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1) for a refusal to grant free access to environmental information. It interpreted too broadly the ground for refusal set out in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (2) in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, in the light of the Aarhus Convention guidelines. The General Court erred in law in assuming that information on the CO2 efficiency of an industrial plant was commercially sensitive information.










2.


The General Court infringed Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by failing to recognise the existence of environmental information on emissions.










3.


Furthermore, the General Court also failed to take sufficient account of the overwhelming public interest in access to the environmental information at issue, as demonstrated by the appellant.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies, OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.