10.1.2004             EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 7/27
Action brought on 19 November 2003 by the Com-                             Commission of the European Communities, represented by
   mission of the European Communities against Ireland                     W. Wils, acting as agent, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg.
                        (Case C-482/03)
                          (2004/C 7/46)                                    The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                        Directives 2001/12/EC amending Council Directive 91/
Justice of the European Communities on 19 November 2003                          440/EEC on the development of the Community’s rail-
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented                       ways (1), 2001/13/EC amending Council Directive 95/18/
by W. Wils, acting as agent, with an address for service in                      C on the licensing of railway undertakings (2) and 2001/
Luxembourg.                                                                      14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity
                                                                                and the levying of charges for the use of railway
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                      infrastructure and safety certification (3), of the European
                                                                                Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, or in
                                                                                any event by failing to notify those provisions to it, the
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under these Directives;
      Directives 2001/12/EC amending Council Directive 91/
      440/EEC on the development of the Community’s rail-
      ways (1), 2001/13/EC amending Council Directive 95/18/               2.    order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      C on the licensing of railway undertakings (2) and 2001/                   Ireland to pay the costs.
      14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity
      and the levying of charges for the use of railway
      infrastructure and safety certification (3), of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, or in
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
      any event by failing to communicate them to the
      Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under these Directives;
                                                                           The period within which the Directives had to be transposed
2.    order Ireland to pay the costs.                                      expired on 15 March 2003.
                                                                           (1) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            (2) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 26.
                                                                           (3) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 29.
The period within which the Directives had to be transposed
expired on 15 March 2003.
(1) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 26.
(3) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 29.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-62/02 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/48)
Action brought on 19 November 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the United
      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                        By order of 8 September 2003 the President of the Second
                                                                           Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                        (Case C-483/03)                                    ordered the removal from the register of Case C-62/02:
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom
                          (2004/C 7/47)                                    of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 19 November 2003 by the


title: Case T-276/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/57

         Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-276/05)
   (2005/C 217/116)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.
   Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 790/2004-1);

               —

               declare opposition proceedings B623 613 inadmissible;

               —

               order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejects opposition as inadmissible

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

               Pleas in law:

               The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1).

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1


title: Case T-47/12: Action brought on 27 January 2012 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM — equinet Bank (EQUITER)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/19

         Action brought on 27 January 2012 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM — equinet Bank (EQUITER)
   (Case T-47/12)
   2012/C 109/42
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Torino, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi, G. Ghisletti and F. Braga, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: equinet Bank AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 October 2011 in case R 2101/2010-1;

               —

               Order the Office to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘EQUITER’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 66707749

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 1600816 of the word mark ‘EQUINET’, for services in classes 35, 36 and 38; German trade mark registration No 39962727 of the word mark ‘EQUINET’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36 and 38

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42(2) and (3) in conjunction with Article 15(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal made a wrong assessment concerning the material submitted in support of the use of the mark, as: (i) there are no sufficient indications on activity, time, place and extent of use of the mark; (ii) there is no sufficient indication concerning the nature of use of the trademark; and (iii) the evidence furnished by the opponent is insufficient to prove that the earlier trade mark was genuinely used in the relevant territory during the period of five years preceding the date of publication of the contested mark.


title: Case T-186/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014  — Atlantic Multipower Germany v OHIM — Nutrichem Diät + Pharma (NOxtreme)

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/53

         Action brought on 21 March 2014 — Atlantic Multipower Germany v OHIM — Nutrichem Diät + Pharma (NOxtreme)
   (Case T-186/14)
   2014/C 142/68
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Atlantic Multipower Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nutrichem Diät + Pharma GmbH (Roth, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 January 2014 in Case R 764/2013-4;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 12 April 2013 (filing No: 6333C);

               —

               Order the intervener to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘NOxtreme’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark No 10 177 889

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Nutrichem Diät + Pharma GmbH

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the national and Community figurative marks, including the word element ‘X-TREME’, for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 32

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 57(2) and (3) in conjunction with Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-123/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2005 — Cargo Partner AG v OHIM (Community trade mark — Word sign CARGO PARTNER — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absence of distinctive character)

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2005 — Cargo Partner AG v OHIM
   (Case T-123/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word sign CARGO PARTNER - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Absence of distinctive character)
   (2005/C 281/40)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Cargo Partner AG (Fischamend, Austria) (represented by: M. Wolner, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Application for
   annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2004 (Case R 346/2003-1), in relation to the application for registration of the word sign CARGO PARTNER as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action.

               2)

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 168, 26.6.2004.


title: Case C-168/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Michele Fanelli v Ministero dell’Interno

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/30

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Michele Fanelli v Ministero dell’Interno
      (Case C-168/10)
      (2010/C 161/42)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Michele Fanelli

         Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

         Question referred

      Is a national system under national legislation (introduced as from the Bersani Decree, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006) compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, when it, inter alia:

                  (a)

                  tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators;

                  (b)

                  in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);

                  (c)

                  provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?


title: Action brought on 22 July 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-268/97)

text:
C 295/ 16                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  27 . 9 . 97
— The Court of First Instance errs in law, and in any                   Action brought on 22 July 1997 by the Commission of the
       event fails to give sufficient reasons, in its finding in         European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
       paragraphs 146 to 153 that the decision of 2 July
                                                                                ( Case C-268/97 )
       1992, containing the Commission's rejection of the
       complaints of Florimex and Others, is based on an                                           ( 97/C 295/24 )
       interpretation and application of the first sentence of
       Article 2 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 26 having a wider
       scope than was the case with earlier decisions .
                                                                        An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice on 22 July 1997 by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, represented
— In paragraphs 155 to 169, the Court of First Instance                 by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, and Lena Strom, a
       comes wrongly and, moreover, incomprehensibly to                 member of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
       the conclusion that the contested decision, as clarified         address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
       in the course of the proceedings, with regard to the             Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
       VBA's survival is not sufficient to demonstrate that the
       user fee is necessary for attainment of the objectives
       set out in Article 39 of the Treaty within the meaning
       of the first sentence of Article 2 ( 1 ) of Regulation           The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                        that the Court should :
       No 26 , and used the wrong legal standard for the
       application of that provision or at least erred in law in
       its application of the first sentence of Article 2 ( 1 ) of
       Regulation No 26 . The Court exceeded its powers by              — declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
       supplementing the facts with suppositions which were,                period all the measures necessary to comply with
       moreover, incorrect .                                                Articles 14 and 22 of Council Directive 86/609/EEC
                                                                            on the approximation of laws, regulations and
                                                                            administrative provisions of the Member States
                                                                            relating to the protection of animals used for
— In paragraphs 170 to 183 , the Court of First Instance                    experimental and other scientific purposes ('), the
       introduces and applies the wrong legal standard, or at               Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
       least formulates a standard for which no legal support               under that directive and the Treaty,
       can be found, by posing the condition that a fee
       charged in the interest of the VBA's survival cannot be
       accepted unless it is levied on a proportionate basis, as
       consideration for a service or other advantage whose             — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
       value is such as to justify the amount charged, or at
        least the Court's considerations in that regard are
        incomprehensible .                                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— In paragraphs 184 to 186 , the Court of First Instance                — In respect of Article 14 of the Directive, the
        wrongly and, moreover, incomprehensibly, considers                  requirement regarding appropriate training is only
        that the Commission based its rejection of Florimex 's              satisfied, under Belgian law, as regards a ' maitre
        complaints ( also ) on the consideration that the user fee          d'experience' ( master of experiments ), whereas the
        has an effect analogous to that of a minimum auction                said article refers to all 'persons who carry out
        price , and consequently finds, on the basis of those               experiments or take part in them'.
        considerations, that the Commission's statement of
        reasons was insufficient .
                                                                        — In respect of Article 22 of the Directive, it is not
                                                                             sufficient to refer, as Belgium has done , to the rules
                                                                            transposing the directives for the harmonization of
— In paragraphs 191 to 195 , the Court of First Instance                     standards and protocols in respect of the testing of
        wrongly, or at least incomprehensibly and without                    proprietary medicinal products and medicaments . The
        stating sufficient reasons, proceeds on the basis that a             aim of Directive 86/609/EEC is the protection of
        charge levied by the VBA on holders of trade                         animals and the avoidance of duplicate testing:
        agreements and a charge levied on direct supplies must               Article 22 refers in general to all experiments 'for the
        be equal unless there is a difference between the two                purpose of satisfying national or Community health
        types of supply.                                                     and safety legislation ' and therefore not solely to the
                                                                             testing of medicaments for human and veterinary use .
 f 1 ) Gottrup-Klim v. Dansk Landbrugs Grovvareselskab [ 1994 ]
       ECR 1-5641 , paragraphs 34 and 35 .                               O OJ L 358 , 18 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 May 2004 in Case C-285/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany)): Edeltraud Elsner-Lakeberg v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Article 141 EC — Directive 75/117/EEC — National measure providing that full-time and part-time teachers are obliged to work the same number of additional hours before being entitled to remuneration — Indirect discrimination against women teachers employed part-time)

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 27 May 2004
   in Case C-285/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany)): Edeltraud Elsner-Lakeberg v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (1)

   (Article 141 EC - Directive 75/117/EEC - National measure providing that full-time and part-time teachers are obliged to work the same number of additional hours before being entitled to remuneration - Indirect discrimination against women teachers employed part-time)
   (2004/C 179/01)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-285/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Edeltraud Elsner-Lakeberg and Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — on the interpretation of Article 141 EC and Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19) — the Court (First Chamber) composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 141 EC and Article 1 of Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that teachers, part-time as well as full-time, do not receive any remuneration for additional hours worked when the additional work does not exceed three hours per calendar month, if that different treatment affects considerably more women than men and if there is no objective unrelated to sex which justifies that different treatment or it is not necessary to achieve the objective pursued.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 12.10.2002.


title: Case T-333/12: Action brought on 25 July 2012 — Soltau v Commission

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/22

         Action brought on 25 July 2012 — Soltau v Commission
   (Case T-333/12)
   2012/C 303/43
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Christoff Soltau (Adendorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Rosenkranz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 14 May 2012;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his action, the applicant claims that the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) does not preclude him from accessing the Commission’s opinion, which the latter communicated to the Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) in accordance with Article 15(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) in the context of a cartel case. In the applicant’s view, Article 4(2) does not apply to the document to which the applicant seeks access, since the proceedings before the Austrian court do not, in principle, fall within the scope of protection of that provision. Even if that were the case, the document in question would not fall within the scope of the provision, since the document was not communicated by the Commission as a party to the proceedings. Moreover, the Commission’s decision cannot be justified on the basis of protection of the proceedings in Case C-681/11 Schenker and Others, pending before the Court of Justice. Indeed, the reference for a preliminary ruling was made by the Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof in the context of the cartel case at issue; however, the document in question was neither issued by the Commission in the context of the proceedings for a preliminary ruling, nor does its content relate to the questions referred.

      (1)  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).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles (101) and (102) (TFEU) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Cases C-7/05, C-8/05, C-9/05: References for preliminary rulings from the Bundesgerichtshof by orders of that court of 11 October 2004 in Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v The heirs of Dieter Deppe: 1.Ulrich Deppe, 2. Hanne-Rose Deppe, 3. Thomas Deppe, 4. Matthias Deppe, 5. Christine Urban, née Deppe (C-7/05), Siegried Hennings (C-8/05) and Hartmut Lübbe (C-9/05)

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/7

         References for preliminary rulings from the Bundesgerichtshof by orders of that court of 11 October 2004 in Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v The heirs of Dieter Deppe: 1.Ulrich Deppe, 2. Hanne-Rose Deppe, 3. Thomas Deppe, 4. Matthias Deppe, 5. Christine Urban, née Deppe (C-7/05), Siegried Hennings (C-8/05) and Hartmut Lübbe (C-9/05)
   (Cases C-7/05, C-8/05, C-9/05)
   (2005/C 82/15)
   Language of the cases: German
   References have been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by orders of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) (Germany) of 11 October 2004, received at the Court Registry on 14 January 2005, for preliminary rulings in the proceedings between Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH and the heirs of Dieter Deppe: 1.Ulrich Deppe, 2. Hanne-Rose Deppe, 3. Thomas Deppe, 4. Matthias Deppe, 5. Christine Urban, née Deppe (C-7/05), Siegried Hennings (C-8/05) and Hartmut Lübbe (C-9/05) on the following questions:

               1.

               Is the requirement that the level of remuneration for the planting of harvested material within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 (1) be 'sensibly lower' than the amount charged for the licensed production of propagating material of the same variety in the same area satisfied even if the remuneration is calculated at a flat rate of 80 % of that amount?

               2.

               Does Article 5(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2605/98 (2), contain a commitment in value terms with respect to the level of remuneration for the planting of harvested material in the event of statutory assessment?
               If so, does that commitment, as the expression of a general idea, also apply to plantings of harvested material occurring before Regulation (EC) No 2605/98 entered into force?

               3.

               Does the guideline function of an agreement between organisations of holders of plant variety rights and farmers within the meaning of Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2605/98, include the possibility, in the event of statutory assessment, of the essential elements (calculation parameters) of that agreement being applied even if, at the time of the calculation of the statutory remuneration, not all of the parameters lying within the sphere of the planter of the harvested material and required for calculation based on the agreement are known to the holder and he is not entitled to be notified of the relevant facts by the farmer?
               If so, does such an agreement, if it is to perform a guiding function along these lines, presuppose, for its effectiveness, compliance with the requirements laid down in Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2605/98, even if it was concluded before the latter regulation entered into force?

               4.

               Does Article 5(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2605/98, set an upper limit on the remuneration under contractual and/or statutory remuneration arrangements?

               5.

               Can an agreement between professional organisations be used as a guideline within the meaning of Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2605/98, if it exceeds the rate of remuneration of 50 % of the amount defined in Article 5(5) of that regulation?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14.

      (2)  OJ 1998 L 328, p. 6.


title: Case T-177/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 9 July 2010 — Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — Preferential electricity tariffs — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/38

         Order of the President of the General Court of 9 July 2010 — Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission
   (Case T-177/10 R)
   (Interim measures - State aid - Preferential electricity tariffs - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)
   2010/C 234/69
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, T. Müller-Ibold and F. Salerno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Gippini Fournier, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Commission decision C(2009) 8112 final of 19 November 2009 on the State aid C 38/A/2004 (ex NN 58/2004) and C 36/B/2006 (ex NN 38/2006) implemented by the Italian Republic in favour of Alcoa Trasformazioni.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Joined Cases C-379/13 P to C-381/13 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 July 2014  — Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) v European Commission (Appeal — Decision 83/673/EEC — Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 — European Social Fund — Training operations — Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Protection of the European Communities’ financial interests)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/23

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) v European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-379/13 P to C-381/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Decision 83/673/EEC - Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 - European Social Fund - Training operations - Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Protection of the European Communities’ financial interests))
   2014/C 409/32
   Language of the cases: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) (represented by: L. Pinto Monteiro and N. Morais Sarmento, advogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeals are dismissed.

               2.

               Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-121/14: Action brought on 12 March 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/28

         Action brought on 12 March 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-121/14)
   2014/C 135/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt, Agent, D.J. Rhee, Barrister)

      Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 29 of, and Annex II of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility amending Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 680/2007 and (EC) No 67/2010 insofar as they extend beyond London what was Corridor 2 in the original Annex to Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 (now referred to as the North Sea — Mediterranean corridor); and

               —

               order that the European Parliament and Council of the European Union pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The effect of the parts of the contested measure for which annulment is sought is to amend Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 concerning a European rail network for competitive freight so as to replace the ‘initial freight corridors’ in Annex to that Regulation with a revised set of ‘initial freight corridors’ as set out in Annex II to the contested measure.
   The effect of the said amendment is, inter alia, to require the United Kingdom to participate in the establishment of the ‘North Sea — Mediterranean’ freight corridor, with an obligation to establish by 10 November 2016 routes between the other member states on the Corridor and London and by 20 November 2018, routes from London to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Southampton and Felixstowe. The United Kingdom has not approved such an extension of the relevant initial corridor set out in Regulation (EU) 913/2010.
   The United Kingdom therefore seeks the relief indicated for the following reasons:

               a)

               the extensions to the ‘initial freight corridors’ brought about by Article 29 of the contested measure pursue the objectives in Article 170 TFEU in relation to the trans-European transport policy. Accordingly, and on the basis that Articles 170 to 172 TFEU constitute a lex specialis for such measures, they can only be adopted under and in accordance with those provisions;

               b)

               the extensions to the ‘initial freight corridors’ brought about by Article 29 of the contested measure (a) are projects of common interest (within the meaning of Article 171(1) TFEU) and (b) relate to the territory of each Member State required to participate in their establishment. On this basis, the extensions, in so far as concerns the United Kingdom, have been adopted in breach of the requirement in the second paragraph of Article 172 TFEU for approval of the Member State concerned;

               c)

               that part of Annex II to the contested measure which requires the United Kingdom to participate in the establishment of the North Sea — Mediterranean Corridor in its territory (i) beyond London (ie to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Felixstowe and Southampton) or (ii) at all, is severable from the remainder of Annex II. Further and in any event, the entirety of Annex II to (and Article 29 of) the contested measure are distinct and severable from the remainder of the Regulation.

      (1)  OJ L 348, p. 129

      (2)  OJ L 276, p. 22


title: Case T-299/09: Action brought on 29 July 2009 — Gühring v OHIM (combination of the colours broom yellow and silver grey)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/27

         Action brought on 29 July 2009 — Gühring v OHIM (combination of the colours broom yellow and silver grey)
   (Case T-299/09)
   2009/C 256/51
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Gühring OHG (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30. April 2009 in Case R 1330/2008-1;

               —

               Annul the decision of the defendant’s Examination Division dated 21 July 2008, in which it refused registration of the applicant’s mark Nr. 6 703 581;

               —

               Declare, that the trade mark applied for No. 6 703 581 complies with the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1);
               in the alternative,

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30. April 2009 in Case R 1330/2008-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: a mark made up of a combination of the colours of broom yellow and silver grey for goods in Class 7 (registration application No. 6 703 581)

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, because the trade mark applied for has a distinctive character. In addition, infringement of procedural law, in particular of Articles 75 and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)


title: Case T -132/09: Action brought on 6 April 2009 — Epcos v OHIM — Epco Sistemas (EPCOS)

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/19

         Action brought on 6 April 2009 — Epcos v OHIM — Epco Sistemas (EPCOS)
   (Case T -132/09)
   2009/C 129/33
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Epcos AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: L. von Zumbusch, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Epco Sistemas, SL (Constanti, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 19 January 2009, R 1088/2008-2;

               —

               annul Decision No B 979767 of the Opposition Division of 22 May 2008 on the opposition proceedings brought by the opposing party, in so far as the opposition was upheld in respect of the goods ‘NTC-Thermistoren’, ‘PTC-Thermistoren’ and ‘Sensoren’, and reject the opposition in its entirety;

               —

               order the defendant and the opposing party to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘EPCOS’ for goods in Classes 6 and 9 (application No 4 133 799)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Epco Sistemas, SL

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark ‘E epco SISTEMAS’ for goods in Class 9

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upholding in part of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and Rule 19(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, (1) since the opposition trade mark has not been used within the five years prior to publication of the trade mark applied for and there is no likelihood of confusion between the two opposing marks.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 18 July 1997 in Case T-180/95: Nutria AE v. Commission of the European Communities (Tendering procedure for the free supply of olive oil to the people of Georgia and Armenia - Damage alleged by the successful tenderer as a result of a delay in the collection of the olive oil by the carrier designated by the Commission - Action to establish non-contractual liability - Contractual origin of the Commission's obligation on which the action is based - Absence of any arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 181 of the EC Treaty - Clear lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Court of First Instance)

text:
C 318/ 14                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18 . 10 . 97
already reimbursed, at Lfrs 180 000, together with any                   of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in
VAT due on that sum.                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue
                                                                         Goethe, against Council of the European Union ( Agents:
(') OJ C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .                                            R. Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin ), supported by
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: T. van
                                                                         Rijn ), Kingdom of Spain ( Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta ),
                                                                         French Republic ( Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and, at the
                                                                         hearing of the parties, C. Chavance ) and Italian Republic
                                                                         (Agents: U. Leanza and F. Quadri ) — application for
                                                                         interim measures in the form of an order of the President
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance enjoining the applicant and
                             of 11 July 1997                             defendant to negotiate a minimum price for imports into
in Case T-16/97: Bruno Chauvin v. Commission of the                      the Community of rice originating in the Netherlands
                       European Communities (')                          Antilles, to replace the tariff quotas introduced by Council
                                                                         Regulation ( EC ) No 1036/97 of 2 June 1997 introducing
(Officials — Judgment of the Court of First Instance —                   safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice
Application for reclassification in grade — Objection of                 originating in the overseas countries and territories ( OJ
      inadmissibility — Material new fact — Admissibility)               L 151 , 10 . 6 . 1997, p. 8 ), and to submit their conclusions
                                97/C 318/27 )                            to him within seven days — the President of the Court of
                                                                         First Instance made an order on 15 July 1997, the
                                                                         operative part of which is as follows:
                   (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-16/97: Bruno Chauvin, an official of the                       1 . The Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                          Italian Republic and the Commission are granted leave
Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels                     to intervene in support of the defendant in the
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                        interlocutory proceedings.
office of Fiduciaire Myson sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
Florence Clotuche and Christine Berardis-Kayser ) —                      2 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
application for annulment of the Commission's decision of
18 June 1996 rejecting the applicant's request for a review
                                                                         3.   Costs are reserved.
of his classification in grade — the Court of First Instance
( First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President;
C. P. Briët and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 11 July 1997, the operative part of
which is as follows :
1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 July 1997
2. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
                                                                         in Case T-180/95 : Nutria AE v. Commission of the
( ] ) OJ C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997.                                                                European Communities ( 1 )
                                                                         (Tendering procedure for the free supply of olive oil to the
                                                                         people of Georgia and Armenia — Damage alleged by the
                                                                         successful tenderer as a result of a delay in the collection
                                                                         of the olive oil by the carrier designated by the
                                                                         Commission       —   Action     to  establish non-contractual
                  ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                 liability — Contractual origin of the Commission 's
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                obligation on which the action is based — Absence of any
                             of 15 July 1997                             arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 181 of the
                                                                         EC Treaty — Clear lack of jurisdiction on the part of the
in Case T-l 79/97 R: Government of the Netherlands
                                                                                Court of First Instance)
           Antilles v. Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/29 )
(Association of the overseas countries and territories —
Safeguard measure — Interlocutory proceedings —
     Application for interim measures — Urgency — None)                                   (Language of the case: Greek)
                              ( 97/C 318/28 )
                                                                         In Case T-180/95 , Nutria AE, established in Athens,
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                         represented by Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, of the
                                                                         Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
In Case. T-179/97 R, Government of the Netherlands                       the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la
Antilles, represented by P. V. F. Bos and M. M. Slotboom,                Foire, against Commission of the European Communities
 ---pagebreak--- 18 . 10 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 318/15
(Agents: Dimitrios Gouloussis and Blanca Vila Costa ) —                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
application pursuant to Article 178 of the EC Treaty for                                          of 23 July 1997
compensation for the damage alleged to have been
suffered by the applicant as a result of the delay in                  in Case T-85/96: Francis Alan Clarke v. European Centre
collection by the carrier designated by the Commission of                for the Development of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) (')
the olive oil made available by the applicant under a                                 (Case not proceeding to judgment)
tendering procedure for the free supply thereof to the
people of Georgia and Armenia — the Court of First                                                  ( 97IC 318/31 )
Instance ( Third Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
President, C. P. Briet and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung,                                (Language of the case: German)
Registrar, made an order on 18 July 1997, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                       In Case T-85/96: Francis Alan Clarke, an official of the
                                                                       European Centre for the Development of Vocational
 1 . The application is dismissed as clearly inadmissible.             Training ( Cedefop ), resident at Eischen ( Luxembourg),
                                                                       represented by Frank Montag, of the Cologne and Brussels
2 . The applicant shall hear the costs.                                Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, against the
                                                                       European Centre for the Development of Vocational
(') OJ C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                       Training ( Cedefop ) ( Agent: Bertrand Wagenbaur) —
                                                                       application for the annulment of 1 . the decision of 5 April
                                                                        1996, as amended by the decision of 22 April 1996 and
                                                                       2 . the decision of 21 May 1996, whereby the defendant
                                                                       rejected an application for the extension of the applicant's
                                                                       secondment to the Statistical Office of the European
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Communities in Luxembourg and ordered his posting to
                                                                       Thessaloniki — the Court of First Instance             ( Fifth
                           of 23 July 1997
                                                                       Chamber), composed of R. Garcia-Valdecasas, President,
       in Case T-24/96: U v. European Centre for the                   J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
      Development of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) (')               an order on 23 July 1997, the operative part of which is
                                                                       as follows :
              (Case not proceeding to judgment)
                            ( 97/C 318/30 )
                                                                       1 . There is no need for the action to proceed to
                                                                            judgment.
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       2. The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs and
In Case T-24/96 : U, an official of the European Centre for                 those incurred by the defendant in the interlocutory
the Development of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ),                         proceedings and these proceedings.
residing in Berlin, represented by Frank Montag,
Rechtsanwalt, Cologne and Brussels, with an address for                (') OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
31 Grand-Rue, v. European Centre for the Development
of Vocational Training ( Cedefop) ( Agent: Bertrand
Wagenbaur) — application for annulment of Cedefop's
decision of 8 February 1996 rejecting a request for an
extension of the applicant's secondment to the office of
the Commission of the European Communities in Berlin                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
and ordering his posting to Thessaloniki — the Court of                                           of 24 July 1997
First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: R. Garcfa
Valdecasas, President; J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;                 in Case T-573/93 ( 129): Manuel Francisco Caballero
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 23 July 1997, the                 Montoya v. Commission of the European Communities (')
operative part of which is as follows :                                                 (Judgments — Interpretation)
                                                                                ( 97IC 318/32 )
I. There is no need to give a decision on the application.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
2 . The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs and to
     pay the costs incurred by the defendant in the
     proceedings for the interim relief and in the present             In Case T-573/93 ( 129 ): Manuel Francisco Caballero
     proceedings.                                                      Montoya, an official of the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitia
                                                                       Bassas, of the Madrid Bar, against Commission of the
H OJ C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
                                                                       European Communities ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira
                                                                       and Maria Isabel Jimenez Rojas ) — application for
                                                                       interpretation of the judgment of the Court of First


title: Case C-107/03 P: Appeal brought on 27 February 2003 by fax, confirmed by the original lodged on 7 March 2003, by The Procter & Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on 12 December 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-63/01 between The Procter & Gamble Company and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
24.5.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 124/5
Appeal brought on 27 February 2003 by fax, confirmed                            attribute the same commercial origin to the goods in
by original lodged on 7 March 2003, by Védial SA against                        question’. However, a likelihood of confusion also exists
the judgment delivered on 12 December 2002 by the                               where the public may believe that the goods come from
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                            undertakings which are connected only economi-
European Communities in Case T-110/01 between Védial                            cally. Moreover, the Court of First Instance rejected any
SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                             likelihood of confusion on the ground that ‘even though
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other                              there is identity and similarity between the goods covered
                 party being France Distribution                                by the conflicting marks, the visual, aural and conceptual
                                                                                differences between the signs’ mean that there is no
                         (Case C-106/03 P)                                      likelihood of confusion, whereas the question is not
                                                                                whether there are differences between the conflicting
                          (2003/C 124/08)                                       marks, but whether there is identity or similarity between
                                                                                them and whether, considered as a whole with the
                                                                                identity or similarity of the goods, the degrees of those
                                                                                similarities are such that there is a likelihood of confusion.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                    In addition, the Court of First Instance did not apply the
the European Communities in Case T-110/01 between Védial                        interdependence rule clearly. The Court of First Instance
SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                      did not raise the point that the claimed low degree of
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party being                         similarity between the marks was not offset by the high
France Distribution, was brought before the Court of Justice of                 degree of similarity between the goods and the strongly
the European Communities on 27 February 2003 by fax,                            distinctive character of the applicant’s trade mark.
confirmed by original lodged on 7 March 2003, by Védial SA.
                                                                                Finally, the Court of First Instance infringed the concept
                                                                                of ‘likelihood of confusion’ by limiting the public con-
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                     cerned to the ‘targeted public’, the latter comprising only
                                                                                consumers likely to acquire the marked goods, whereas
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                  the public concerned consists of all persons likely to be
      12 December 2002 in Case T-110/01 and accordingly
                                                                                confronted with the mark, which is very different.
      —     acting pursuant to Article 54 of the Statute of the
            Court of Justice, give final judgment in the matter,
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
            granting the forms of order sought by the applicant                Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1).
            before the Court of First Instance;
      —     .in the alternative: refer the case back to the Court
            of First Instance for judgment;
—     in any case: order OHIM to pay the costs.
                                                                          Appeal brought on 27 February 2003 by fax, confirmed
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           by the original lodged on 7 March 2003, by The Procter
                                                                          & Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on
—     Plea alleging breach of the ‘principle of party disposition’        12 December 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
      The ‘principle of party disposition’ is a general principle         of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
      of law under which the parties exercise, in principle, sole         T-63/01 between The Procter & Gamble Company and
      control over legal proceedings. It is they who delimit the          the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
      subject-matter of the dispute. The Court of First Instance                        (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
      certainly acted in breach of the ‘principle of party
      disposition’ by holding, contrary to the agreement of the                                    (Case C-107/03 P)
      parties on this point, that there was no similarity between
      the conflicting trade marks.
                                                                                (2003/C 124/09)
—     Plea alleging breach of the right to a fair hearing
      The Court of First Instance also acted in breach of the
      right to a fair hearing since it undermined the applicant’s
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
      legitimate expectation as to the delimitation of the
                                                                          2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
      dispute.
                                                                          the European Communities in Case T-63/01 between The
—     Plea alleging infringements of the concept of ‘likelihood           Procter & Gamble Company and the Office for Harmonisation
      of confusion’ and the concept of ‘public’ within the                in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
      meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1)               was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities on 27 February 2003 by fax, confirmed by the
      The contested judgment rules out the likelihood of                  original lodged on 7 March 2003, by The Procter & Gamble
      confusion on the ground that the public ‘will not                   Company.
 ---pagebreak--- C 124/6                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         24.5.2003
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                      issue, the public will perceive above all or primarily a sign
                                                                                that fulfils a technical or ornamental function that the
                                                                                performance of its function as an individual trade mark
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                   would be precluded or even reduced.
      12 December 2002 in Case T-63/01 and, in consequence
      thereof,
      —     primarily: apply Article 54 of the Statute of the
            Court of Justice and give final judgment in the
            matter, upholding the form of order sought by the
            appellant before the Court of First Instance;                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
                                                                           Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
      —     in the alternative: refer the case back to the Court of        of 8 January 2003 in the case of KPN Telecom B.V. against
                                                                           Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatie Autoriteit;
            First Instance for judgment;
                                                                           Interested parties: Denda Multimedia B.V. and Denda
                                                                                Directory Services B.V.
—     in any event: order OHIM to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-109/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 124/10)
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Plea alleging breach of the presumption that documents               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      may be relied on or inconsistency in the grounds of the              European Communities by order of the College van Beroep
      judgment:                                                            voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
                                                                           Industry) of 8 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on
      Contrary to what the Court of First Instance states, the             10 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of KPN
      sign reproduced does not present any of the 24 rectangles            Telecom B.V. against Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunica-
      or any of the six parallelograms of which a rectangular              tie Autoriteit; Interested parties: Denda Multimedia B.V. and
      parallelepiped consists.                                             Denda Directory Services B.V. on the following questions:
                                                                           1.    Is ‘relevant information’ in Article 6(3) of Directive 98/
—     Plea alleging misconstruction of the concept of distinctive                10/EC ( 1) to be interpreted as meaning only the numbers
      character:                                                                 together with the name, address, town/city and postcode
                                                                                of the person to whom the number has been issued and
      When it is necessary to determine whether a sign is                        any entry as to whether the number is used (exclusively)
      capable of fulfilling its function as an individual mark                   as a fax line published by the organisations concerned or
      for specific goods or services, when the merits of an                      does ‘relevant information’ also cover other data at the
      application for registration as an individual mark for                     disposal of the organisations such as an additional
      those goods and services are being examined, it is                         entry relating to a profession, another name, another
      necessary to reason in terms of the presumed perception                    municipality or mobile telephone numbers?
      of the use which might be made of the sign and not in
      terms of the actual perception of any actual use already             2.    Is ‘meet (...) reasonable requests (...) on terms which
      made of the sign. The Court of First Instance maintains                    are fair, cost oriented and non-discriminatory’ in the
      that the distinctive character of the sign must be assessed                provision referred in Question 1 to be interpreted as
      in relation ‘to the perception of the relevant public’. In                 meaning that:
      that regard, the relevant public consists of all persons
      likely to find themselves in the presence of the sign and                  a)    numbers together with the name, address, town/city
      cannot therefore be reduced to the much more restricted                          and postcode of the person to whom the number
      circle of consumers likely to acquire the goods or services                      has been issued must be made available for a
      which the sign is supposed to designate.                                         remuneration of only the marginal costs involved in
                                                                                actually making them available, and
      Furthermore, the Court of First Instance indirectly but
      definitely misconstrued the concept of distinctive charac-                 b)    data other than those referred to in paragraph (a)
      ter when it failed to rule on whether or not the sign was                        must be made available for a remuneration intended
      incapable of distinguishing one bar of soap from another                         to cover the costs of what the provider of these data
      as coming from a specific undertaking, but rather whether                        shows he has incurred in obtaining or providing
      the imperfect picture of that sign had such capacity.                            these data?
      Last, the Court of First Instance misunderstood the
      concept of distinctive character by completely disre-                (1 ) OJ L 101 [1998], p. 24.
      garding the multifunctionality of signs. It is not because
      it might be presumed that, in the presence of the sign in


title: Case C-195/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kehl (Germany) lodged on 7 April 2016 — I.

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kehl (Germany) lodged on 7 April 2016 — I.
   (Case C-195/16)
   (2016/C 260/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Kehl

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: I.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is EU law, in particular Article 2 of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (‘Directive 2006/126/EC’ (1)) or Articles 18, 21, 45, 49 and 56 TFEU, to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which refuses to recognise an authorisation to drive (Fahrerlaubnis) acquired in another Member State, in particular where that authorisation to drive was acquired in accordance with the requirements of Directive 2006/126/EC?

               2.

               Is EU law, in particular Article 2 of Directive 2006/126/EC or Articles 18, 21, 45, 49 and 56 TFEU, to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which refuses to recognise a document evidencing authorisation to drive which another Member State has issued to the holder of such authorisation in accordance with Directive 2006/126/EC, even if that Member State has limited the validity of that authorisation in time and to its own territory and that document does not, moreover, fulfil the requirements of the single European driving licence model of Directive 2006/126/EC?

               3.

               Should the answer to the first question be in the negative: Is EU law, in particular Article 2 of Directive 2006/126/EC or Articles 18, 21, 45, 49 and 56 TFEU, to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which threatens to prosecute as a criminal offence the driving of a vehicle without a right to drive, even if the driver of the vehicle has been authorised to drive in another Member State in accordance with the requirements of that directive, but is unable to provide a document to that effect which corresponds to the single European licence model of Directive 2006/126/EC?

               4.

               Should the answer to the second question be in the negative: Is EU law, in particular Article 2 of Directive 2006/126/EC or Articles 18, 21, 45, 49 and 56 TFEU, to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State — in which an applicant for a driving licence is, as a general rule, issued a definitive driving licence directly after passing the practical driving test — under which prosecution as a minor offence is threatened for driving a vehicle if the driver, who has been licensed to drive in another Member State in accordance with the requirements of Directive 2006/126/EC, drives without a definitive driving licence as evidence of his authorisation to drive because such a licence has not yet been issued to him, yet due to the particularities of the procedure for the issuing of the definitive driving licence in that Member State, over which the driver has no control, the driver is in possession of an official document certifying that the necessary requirements for acquiring authorisation to drive have been fulfilled?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.


title: Case C-105/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — P.J. Vonk Noordegraaf v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken (Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Single payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Articles 34, 36 and 137 — Payment entitlements — Basis of calculation — Premiums paid in respect of cattle and land held by the farmer during the reference period — Modification of the method for determining the area of agricultural parcels — Reduction in the hectares eligible for aid — Application by the farmer for a reduction in the number and an increase in the unit value of his payment entitlements — Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Article 73a(2a) — Lawfulness)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — P.J. Vonk Noordegraaf v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
   (Case C-105/13) (1)

   ((Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Single payment scheme - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Articles 34, 36 and 137 - Payment entitlements - Basis of calculation - Premiums paid in respect of cattle and land held by the farmer during the reference period - Modification of the method for determining the area of agricultural parcels - Reduction in the hectares eligible for aid - Application by the farmer for a reduction in the number and an increase in the unit value of his payment entitlements - Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 - Article 73a(2a) - Lawfulness))
   2014/C 253/13
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: P.J. Vonk Noordegraaf

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Articles 34, 36 and 137 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16) — Direct support schemes — Single payment scheme — Farmer who obtained, in 2006, payment entitlements acquired on the basis of his non-area-related production and the areas belonging to him — Method of identifying the areas subsequently amended — Reduction in the hectares eligible for aid

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 73a(2a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulations (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 73/2009, as well as for the implementation of cross-compliance provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 380/2009 of 8 May 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer’s payment entitlements must be recalculated when, in the initial determination of his payment entitlements, that farmer’s reference amount was divided by too high a number of hectares because of the method for determining the area of agricultural parcels used at that time in the Member State concerned. Article 137 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 does not apply to a correction under Article 73a(2a) of Regulation No 796/2004.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case T-107/05: Action brought on 22 February 2005 by François Muller against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/30

         Action brought on 22 February 2005 by François Muller against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities
   (Case T-107/05)
   (2005/C 115/54)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 February 2005 by François Muller, residing in Strasbourg (France), represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the applicant's pension statement of May 2004, with the effect of applying a correction coefficient at the level for the capital of his country of residence or, at the very least, a correction coefficient which would adequately reflect the differences in the cost of living at the place where the applicant is deemed to incur expenditure and therefore complying with the principle of equivalence;

               2.

               order the Court of Auditors to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant puts forward pleas and arguments identical to those put forward by the applicants in Case T-35/05.


title: Case C-173/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy)) — Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA, in liquidation v Repubblica italiana (Non-contractual liability of Member States — Damage caused to individuals by infringements of Community law attributable to a national court adjudicating at last instance — National legislation limiting State liability to cases of intentional fault and serious misconduct on the part of the court — Liability excluded in connection with the interpretation of provisions of law or assessment of facts or evidence in the exercise of judicial functions)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/1

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy)) — Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA, in liquidation v Repubblica italiana
   (Case C-173/03) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability of Member States - Damage caused to individuals by infringements of Community law attributable to a national court adjudicating at last instance - National legislation limiting State liability to cases of intentional fault and serious misconduct on the part of the court - Liability excluded in connection with the interpretation of provisions of law or assessment of facts or evidence in the exercise of judicial functions)
   (2006/C 190/01)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale di Genova
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA, in liquidation

      Defendant: Repubblica italiana
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Genova — Non-contractual liability of a Member State towards its nationals for errors committed by its own courts in the application of Community law, in particular the failure by a court adjudicating at last instance to refer a case to the Court in accordance with Article 234 EC
   Operative part of the judgment
   Community law precludes national legislation which excludes State liability, in a general manner, for damage caused to individuals by an infringement of Community law attributable to a court adjudicating at last instance by reason of the fact that the infringement in question results from an interpretation of provisions of law or an assessment of facts or evidence carried out by that court.
   Community law also precludes national legislation which limits such liability solely to cases of intentional fault and serious misconduct on the part of the court, if such a limitation were to lead to exclusion of the liability of the Member State concerned in other cases where a manifest infringement of the applicable law was committed, as set out in paragraphs 53 to 56 of the judgment in Case C-224/01 Köbler [2003] ECR I-10239.

      (1)  OJ C 158, 5.7.2003.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2005 in Case T-482/04: KOMSA Kommunikation Sachsen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — Case does not proceed to judgment)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/43

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 1 July 2005
   in Case T-482/04: KOMSA Kommunikation Sachsen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - Case does not proceed to judgment)
   (2005/C 217/95)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-482/04: KOMSA Kommunikation Sachsen AG, established in Hartmannsdorf (Germany), represented by F. Hagemann, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: T. Eichenberg), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been Anders + Kern Präsentationssysteme GmbH & Co. KG, established in Norderstedt (Germany) — action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2004 (Case R 65/2003-4), concerning opposition proceedings between KOMSA Kommunikation Sachsen AG and Anders + Kern Präsentationssysteme GmbH & Co. KG — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J. D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and I. Labucka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 1 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 57 of 5.3.2005.


title: Case F-140/12: Action brought on 16 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/76

         Action brought on 16 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-140/12)
   2013/C 26/159
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: R. Duta, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the refusal to grant the confirmatory application made by the applicant to the Commission for access to several questions asked in the course of the pre-selection procedure for open competition EPSO/AD/230 231/12.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision refusing the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents;

               —

               where necessary and, in particular, in so far as their nature as decisions is established, annul EPSO’s decisions of 20 July 2012 in accordance with which the applicant was refused access to seven of the questions asked in the course of the pre-selection procedure for open competition EPSO/AD 230-231;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-395/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland), lodged on 13 October 2009 — Oasis East sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland), lodged on 13 October 2009 — Oasis East sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów
   (Case C-395/09)
   2009/C 312/34
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Oasis East sp. z o.o.

      Respondent: Minister Finansów

      Question referred

   Does Community law (in particular, Article 17(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, now Article 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax) entitle a Member State to apply national provisions which exclude the right of a taxable person to reduce the amount of tax due, or to receive a refund of the difference, in the case of the purchase of imported services in connection with which payment of the amount due is made directly or indirectly to a person having its place of residence, registered office or central management in one of the territories or countries referred to in national law as so-called ‘tax havens’, regard being had to the fact that such exclusion was applied in the Member State prior to its accession to the Community?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-265/06: Action brought on 20 September 2006 — Lee/DE v OHIM — Cooperativa Italiana di Ristorazione (PIAZZA del SOLE)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/54

         Action brought on 20 September 2006 — Lee/DE v OHIM — Cooperativa Italiana di Ristorazione (PIAZZA del SOLE)
   (Case T-265/06)
   (2006/C 294/111)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Sara Lee/DE NV (Utrecht, the Netherlands) (represented by: C. Hollier-Larousse, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Cooperativa Italiana di Ristorazione Soc. coop.rl
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul and amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in so far as it confirmed the rejection of the partial opposition lodged by the applicant against the application for the Community mark ‘PIAZZA del SOLE’ No 1 518 901 and the rejection of Opposition No B 337 081;

               —

               consequently, dismiss, in part, the registration of the Community mark ‘PIAZZA del SOLE’ No 1 518 901, in so far as it designates the goods in Classes 21, 29, 30 and 42;

               —

               order OHIM to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Cooperativa Italiana di Ristorazione Soc. coop.rl

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PIAZZA del SOLE’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 21, 25, 29, 30, 35, 36 and 42 — Application No 1 518 901

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and international word marks ‘PIAZZA’ and ‘PIAZZA D'ORO’ for goods in Classes 21, 29, 30 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) in so far as the Board of Appeal, in the contested decision, made a number of errors in considering that there was little distinctiveness as to the element common to the signs in question, in so far as it did not draw the necessary conclusions from its finding that the elements ‘D'ORO’ and ‘DEL SOLE’ are common words and in so far as it considered that the differences between the marks prevailed over the way the marks were perceived.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-571/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias (Spain) lodged on 27 December 2007 — José Manuel Blanco Pérez and Maria del Pilar Chao Gómez v Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios del Principado de Asturias and Celso Fernandez Gómez

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias (Spain) lodged on 27 December 2007 — José Manuel Blanco Pérez and Maria del Pilar Chao Gómez v Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios del Principado de Asturias and Celso Fernandez Gómez
   (Case C-571/07)
   (2008/C 79/24)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: José Manuel Blanco Pérez and Maria del Pilar Chao Gómez

      Defendants: Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios del Principado de Asturias and Celso Fernandez Gómez
   Question referred
   Does Article 43 [EC] preclude the legislation of the Autonomous Community of the Principality of Asturias concerning authorisation for the establishment of pharmacies?


title: Case C-586/15 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 September 2016 — Lotte Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — Figurative mark including a word element in Japanese and a picture of a koala in a tree holding a small koala — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national three-dimensional mark KOALA-BÄREN and earlier figurative mark KOALA — Proof of genuine use of the mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/12

      Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 September 2016 — Lotte Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office
      (Case C-586/15 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - EU trade mark - Figurative mark including a word element in Japanese and a picture of a koala in a tree holding a small koala - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national three-dimensional mark KOALA-BÄREN and earlier figurative mark KOALA - Proof of genuine use of the mark - Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
      (2016/C 454/24)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Lotte Co. Ltd (represented by: M. Knitter, lawyer)

         The other parties to the proceedings: Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, lawyer), European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2)

                  Orders Lotte Co. Ltd to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH;

                  3)

                  The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case T-508/08: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Bang & Olufsen v OHIM (Representation of a loudspeaker) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Representation of a loudspeaker — Compliance by OHIM with a judgment annulling a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal — Article 63(6) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign which consists exclusively of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods — Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Bang & Olufsen v OHIM (Representation of a loudspeaker)
   (Case T-508/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Representation of a loudspeaker - Compliance by OHIM with a judgment annulling a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal - Article 63(6) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign which consists exclusively of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods - Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2011/C 340/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bang & Olufsen A/S (Struer, Denmark) (represented: initially by K. Wallberg and subsequently by J. Glaesel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis and G. Schneider, Agents)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2008 (Case R 497/2005-1), concerning an application to register a three-dimensional sign representing a loudspeaker as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bang & Olufsen A/S to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.