title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 1 December 1998 in Case C-410/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Metz): Criminal proceedings against André Ambry (Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Provision of financial security - Travel agency arranging the security required to carry on its activities with a credit institution or insurance company established in another Member State)

text:
C 20/10               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.1.1999
2. Community law precludes the application of a rule of              Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; J. Mischo,
     national law which limits an employee's entitlement to          Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
     arrears of remuneration or damages for breach of the            Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 December 1998 in
     principle of equal pay to a period of two years prior           which it has ruled:
     to the date on which the proceedings were instituted,
     even when another remedy is available, if the latter is
     likely to entail procedural rules or other conditions
     which are less favourable than those applicable to              It is contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty and to
     similar domestic actions. It is for the national court to       Second Council Directive 89/646/EEC of 15 December
     determine whether that is the case.                             1989 on th coordination of laws, regulations and
                                                                     administrative provisions relating to the taking up and
                                                                     pursuit of the business of credit institutions and amending
(1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.                                            Directive 77/780/EEC and Council Directive 92/49/EEC
                                                                     of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations
                                                                     and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance
                                                                     other than life assurance and amending Directives
                                                                     73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance
                                                                     Directive) for national rules to require, with a view to
                                                                     implementing Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC
                                                                     of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 package tours, that, where financial security is provided
                                                                     by a credit institution or insurance company situated in
                     of 1 December 1998                              another Member State, the guarantor must conclude an
                                                                     agreement with a credit institution or insurance company
in Case C-410/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            situated in France.
the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Metz): Criminal
             proceedings against AndreÂ Ambry (1)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
(Freedom to provide services Ð Free movement of capital
Ð Provision of financial security Ð Travel agency
arranging the security required to carry on its activities
with a credit institution or insurance company established
                  in another Member State)
                        (1999/C 20/15)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                of 1 December 1998
                                                                     in Case C-200/97: (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Ecotrade Srl v. Altiforni e
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                      Ferriere di Servola SpA (AFS) (1)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     (State aid Ð Definition Ð Advantage conferred without
                                                                     any transfer of public funds Ð Insolvent undertakings Ð
                                                                     Article 92 of the EC Treaty Ð Article 4(c) of the ECSC
In Case C-410/96: reference to the Court under Article 177                                       Treaty)
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Grande Instance,
Metz (France) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                                       (1999/C 20/16)
proceedings pending before that court against AndreÂ
Ambry Ð on the interpretation of Articles 59 and 73(b) of
the EC Treaty, of Council Directive 73/183/EEC of 28 June
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
1973 on the abolition of restrictions on freedom of
establishment and freedom to provide services in respect
of self-employed activities of banks and other financial
institutions (OJ L 194, 16.7.1973, p. 1) and of Second
Council Directive 89/646/EEC of 15 December 1989 on                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative                       published in the European Court Reports)
provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the
business of credit institutions and amending Directive
77/780/EEC (OJ L 386, 30.12.1989, p. 1) Ð the Court,
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. J. G.           In Case C-200/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch, Presidents of               of the EC Treaty by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione
Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C.               (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, R.                  before that court between Ecotrade Srl and Altiforni e


title: Case C-149/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis (Greece) lodged on 29 March 2010 — Zoe Chatzi v Ipourgos Ikonomikon

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis (Greece) lodged on 29 March 2010 — Zoe Chatzi v Ipourgos Ikonomikon
   (Case C-149/10)
   2010/C 148/30
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zoe Chatzi

      Defendant: Ipourgos Ikonomikon

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can clause 2.1 of Council Directive 96/34/ΕC on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, interpreted in conjunction with Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union relating to the rights of the child — and in light of the enhanced level of protection of those rights which has been brought about by the Charter of Fundamental Rights — be regarded as also creating in parallel a right to parental leave for the child, so that, if twins have been born, the grant of one period of parental leave constitutes an infringement of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of birth and a restriction on the right of twins that is not permitted by the principle of proportionality?

               2.

               If the answer to the preceding question is in the negative, does the term ‘birth’ in clause 2.1 of Directive 96/34/ΕC mean that a double right to the grant of parental leave is created for working parents, that right being based on the fact that pregnancy with twins results in two successive births of children (twins), or does it mean that parental leave is granted for one birth, irrespective of how many children are thereby born, without any infringement in the latter case of equality before the law under Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 21 October 1998 in Case T-40/95 R II: V v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Applications for interim measures - Disciplinary procedure - No need to adjudicate)

text:
C 397/30              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  19.12.98
J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
given a judgment on 17 November 1998, in which it:                                    of 12 November 1998
                                                                  in Case T-294/97: Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez v.
1. Dismisses the action;                                                  Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                  (Officials Ð Internal competition reserved for Category A
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                    temporary staff Ð Application by a Grade B 5 official Ð
                                                                           Unlawfulness of the notice of competition)
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.                                                                    (98/C 397/59)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                  In Case T-294/97: Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez, an
                                                                  official of the Commission of the European Communities,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         residing in London, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
                    of 17 November 1998                           Thierry Demaseure, FrancËoise Parmentier and, initially,
                                                                  Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
in Case T-131/97: Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez              service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                  v. European Parliament (1)                      SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the
(Officials Ð Retirement Ð Article 50 of the Staff                 European Communities (Agent: Julian Currall) Ð
                         Regulations)                             application for annulment of the decision of the selection
                                                                  board in competition COM/T/A/97 not to admit the
                        (98/C 397/58)                             applicant to the tests in the competition, which had been
                                                                  organised in order to constitute a reserve list of assistant
                                                                  administrators, administrators and principal administrators
               (Language of the case: French)                     Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
                                                                  composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and
                                                                  J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,
In Case T-131/97: Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez,             for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November
a former official of the European Parliament, represented         1998, in which it:
by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. European Parliament (Agent:            1. Annuls the decisions of the selection board of 14 April
Manfred Peter, assisted by Denis Walbroeck) Ð                         and 12 May 1997 in internal competition COM/T/A/
application for annulment of the decision adopted                     97, refusing to admit Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez
pursuant to Article 50 of the Staff Regulation of officials           to the tests in that competition;
of the European Communities by the European Parliament
at its meeting on 15 and 16 July 1996, by which it retired
the applicant and rejected her applications for two other         2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
posts in the same grade Ð the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,           (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.
R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has gien a judgment on
17 November 1998, in which it:
1. Declares the action inadmissible in so far as it seeks
     annulment of that section of the operative part of the                      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
     decision adopted by the European Parliament at its                     OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     meeting on 15 and 16 July 1996 which confirms the
     rejection of the application by the applicant for the                             of 21 October 1998
     post of Director-General of the Parliament's                 in Case T-40/95 R II: V v. Commission of the European
     Directorate-General 1;                                                                 Communities
                                                                  (Officials Ð Applications for interim measures Ð
2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;                              Disciplinary procedure Ð No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (98/C 397/60)
3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                                  In Case T-40/95 R II: V, an official of the Commission of
                                                                  the European Communities, represented by Jean-NoeÈl
 ---pagebreak--- 19.12.98             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 397/31
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                 tender to the defendant for the Project entitled FD RUS
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at         9603 which concerned adapting Russian beef and dairy
the Office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de                     cattle farming to restructuring and which was worth ECU
Cessange, against Commission of the European                       3,7 million. Under the tendering procedure there were two
Communities (Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira) Ð                      rounds of evaluation to assess the shortlisted tenderers. In
application for suspension of operation of the                     the first round the applicant's tender was placed first,
Commission's decision of 18 January 1995 removing the              whereas in the second round it was only awarded second
applicant from his post as a disciplinary sanction Ð the           place.
President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
21 October 1998, the operative part of which is as
follows:
                                                                   The applicant was informed of the outcome of the second
                                                                   round of the tendering procedure, which is contested in
There is no need to adjudicate on the application for              this application, by letter of 26 June 1998. That letter
interim measures.                                                  stated that the applicant's tender was unsuccessful because
                                                                   it was inferior to the successful tender in terms of the
                                                                   experience of its team and its financial offer. However, in
                                                                   the tendering procedure as a whole there were serious
                                                                   breaches by the defendant and by the winning tenderer in
                                                                   the second round of the principle of fair competition on
                                                                   which every invitation to tender is based, with the result
Action brought by ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der
                                                                   that the award of the contract for this project must be
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Tierzüchter mbH against
                                                                   annulled.
the Commission of the European Communities, received
by the Registry of the Court of Justice on 11 September
1998 and transmitted to the Court of First Instance
pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 47 of the EC
               Statute of the Court of Justice
                      (Case T-145/98)
                       (98/C 397/61)                               Action brought on 15 October 1998 by Anastasios
                                                                   Bisopoulos against the Commission of the European
              (Language of the case: German)                                               Communities
                                                                                (Case T-168/98)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                         (98/C 397/62)
Instance of the European Communities on 11 September
1998 by ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der Arbeitsgemeinschaft
Deutscher Tierzüchter mbH, Bonn (FRG), represented by                             (Language of the case: French)
Andreas Hansen, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for
service at Uelzener Straûe 8, Bienenbüttel (FRG).
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 15 October
1.   declare that the decision of the defendant of 26 June         1998 by Anastasios Bisopoulos, residing in Brussels,
    1998, notified to the applicant on 6 July 1998, is             represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an
    unlawful,                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                   Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
2. declare further that the defendant is bound to award
    the contract to carry out Project No FD RUS 9603 to
    the applicant,                                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
3. Order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum
    of DEM 550 000 by way of damages,                              Ð annul the decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                       12 February 1998, which took effect on 16 February
                                                                       1998 and was communicated to the applicant on
4. in the alternative, order the defendant to pay to the               27 February 1998, inasmuch as it classifies the
    applicant the sum of DEM 225 250 by way of
                                                                       applicant in grade A 5, step 5, which seniority in step
    damages.
                                                                       as from 1 May 1997;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   Ð annul the implicit decision rejecting the complaint of
The applicant, which operates a successful livestock                   25 May 1998, registered on 27 May 1998 under
consultancy throughout Eastern Europe, submitted a                     number R492/98;


title: Case T-804/16: Action brought on 16 September 2016 — LG Electronics/EUIPO (Dual Edge)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/46

         Action brought on 16 September 2016 — LG Electronics/EUIPO (Dual Edge)
   (Case T-804/16)
   (2017/C 022/63)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Dual Edge’ – Application for registration No 14 463 178

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2016 in Case R 832/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-368/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Lyon — France) — Cedilac SA v Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie (Sixth VAT Directive — Right to deduct — Principles of immediate deduction and fiscal neutrality — Carry forward of the excess VAT to the following period or refund — One-month delay rule — Transitional provisions — Retention of the exemption)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/20

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Lyon — France) — Cedilac SA v Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie
   (Case C-368/06) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Right to deduct - Principles of immediate deduction and fiscal neutrality - Carry forward of the excess VAT to the following period or refund - One-month delay rule - Transitional provisions - Retention of the exemption)
   (2008/C 51/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal administratif de Lyon
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cedilac SA

      Defendant: Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif de Lyon — Interpretation of Articles 17 and 18(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Conditions for the exercise of the right to deduct VAT charged on the price of a taxable transaction when the amount of authorised transactions exceeds the amount of tax due for a given tax period — Excess carried forward to the next period or refunded
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 17 and 18(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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, are to be interpreted as not precluding national measures such as the transitional measures provided for by Law No 93-859 of 22 June 1993, the amending Finance Law for 1993, which are designed to accompany the abolition of a national derogating provision authorised by Article 28(3)(d) of the same directive, in so far as the national court verifies that, in its application to the specific case before it, those measures reduce the effects of the national derogating provision.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.


title: Case F-8/13: Action brought on 28 January 2013 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/39

         Action brought on 28 January 2013 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-8/13)
   2013/C 108/92
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to confirm the applicant in his post as Head of Unit and to transfer him to the Directorate General for Internal Policies.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 23 March 2012 not to confirm the applicant in his post as Head of Unit and to transfer him with his post to the Directorate General for Internal Policies;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the decision of the President of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 15 October 2012, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 22 June 2012;

               —

               order compensation for the material and non-material damage to the applicant resulting from those decisions;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case T-234/00: Action brought on 6 September 2000 by Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità against Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.1.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 4/5
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Action brought on 6 September 2000 by Fondazione
                                                                          Opera S. Maria della Carità against Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                      of 26 September 2000
in Case T-80/97: Starway SA v Council of the European                                              (Case T-234/00)
                               Union (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 4/07)
(Extension of an anti-dumping duty — Exemption — Action
for annulment — Admissibility — Assembly operation —
Burden of proof — Statement of reasons — Manifest error                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                           of assessment)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                            (2001/C 4/06)                                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 6 September 2000 by Fondazione
                                                                          Opera S. Maria della Carità, represented by Franca Gajulli and
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Isabella Gianniotti, of the Venice Bar.
In Case T-80/97: Starway SA, established in Luynes (France),
represented by J.-F. Bellis and P. De Baere, of the Brussels Bar,         The applicant claims that the Court should:
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
L. Lorang, 3 Rue de la Chapelle, against Council of the                   —     annul Articles 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Commission Decision
European Union (Agents: R. Torrent, A. Tanca, S. Marquardt                      2000/394/EEC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in
and P. Bentley) supported by Commission of the European                         Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security
Communities (Agent: N. Khan) — application for annulment                        contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995,
of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of 10 January                  or annul Articles 1, 2, 5 and 6 thereof, and declare
1997 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by                      applicable the exemption provided for by Article 86(2) of
Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 on bicycles originating in the                      the Treaty (services of general economic interest) to the
People’s Republic of China to imports of certain bicycle parts                  applicant;
from the People’s Republic of China, and levying the extended
duty on such imports registered under Regulation (EC)
No 703/96 (OJ 1997 L 16, p. 55, corrigendum (Spanish and                  —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
French versions only) published in OJ 1997 L 95, p. 30)
— the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, V. Tiili,
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
J. Azizi, M. Jaeger and P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
26 September 2000, in which it:                                           The decision contested in the present case is the same as that
                                                                          in Case T-218/00 Cooperativa Mare Azzurro and Others (1).
1.    Annuls Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of
      10 January 1997 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty
      imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 on bicycles                  The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
      originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of         Cases T-231/00 Adriatica di Navigazione v Commission (1).
      certain bicycle parts from the People’s Republic of China, and
      levying the extended duty on such imports registered under
      Regulation (EC) No 703/96, in so far as it concerns imports         The applicant refutes the charge that there is a constituent
      of essential bicycle parts by the applicant between 20 April        element of aid in the present case, pointing out that its
      1996 and 18 April 1997;                                             activities consist overall in the provision of complementary
                                                                          services in the public interest carried out, under arrangements
2.    Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those           agreed with the local authorities, whenever the latter, whose
      incurred by the applicant;                                          responsibility they are, are unable to do so directly themselves.
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
                                                                          (1) Not yet published.
(1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.97.


title: Case T-99/12: Action brought on 22 February 2012 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/30

         Action brought on 22 February 2012 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
   (Case T-99/12)
   2012/C 151/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damas, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               In consequence, annul Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 and their subsequent implementing acts, insofar as they concern the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, the first three of which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Cases T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council, (1) and T-433/11 Makhlouf v Council.
       (2)

   The fourth plea alleges infringement of the principle of equal treatment, the consequence of which is to distort competition both within the European Union and Syria and as between those two territories.

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 13.

      (2)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 14


title: Joined Cases C-536/08 and C-539/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 April 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X (C-536/08), fiscale eenheid Facet BV/Facet Trading BV (C-539/08) (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 17(2) and (3) — Article 28b(A)(2) — Right to deduction — Transitional arrangements for the taxation of trade between Member States — Place of the intra-Community acquisitions of goods)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/10

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 April 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X (C-536/08), fiscale eenheid Facet BV/Facet Trading BV (C-539/08)
      (Joined Cases C-536/08 and C-539/08) (1)

      (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 17(2) and (3) - Article 28b(A)(2) - Right to deduction - Transitional arrangements for the taxation of trade between Member States - Place of the intra-Community acquisitions of goods)
      (2010/C 161/13)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

         Defendants: X (C-536/08), fiscale eenheid Facet BV/Facet Trading BV (C-539/08)

         Re:

      References for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Den Haag) — Interpretation of Article 17(2) and (3) and Article 28b(A)(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Transitional arrangements for the taxation of trade between Member States — Place of intra-Community acquisitions of goods

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 17(2) and (3) and 28b(A)(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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, as amended by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person coming within the situation referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 28b(A)(2) does not have the right immediately to deduct the input value added tax charged on an intra-Community acquisition.

         (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-195/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Helga Krüsemann and Others v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Helga Krüsemann and Others v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-195/17)
   (2017/C 221/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Helga Krüsemann, Gabriele Heidenreich, Doris Manneck, Rita Juretschke

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case C-629/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach (Poland) lodged on 2 December 2013 — Adarco Invest sp. z o.o established in Petrosani (Romania), Polish branch in Tarnowskie Góry

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/6

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach (Poland) lodged on 2 December 2013 — Adarco Invest sp. z o.o established in Petrosani (Romania), Polish branch in Tarnowskie Góry
      (Case C-629/13)
      (2014/C 71/10)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach

         Party to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Adarco Invest sp. z o.o established in Petrosani (Romania), Polish branch in Tarnowskie Góry

         Question referred

      Do Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 1 of the Eleventh Council Directive concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches opened in a Member State by certain types of company governed by the law of another State (1) preclude refusal in a Member State to remove from the Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy (commercial register) a branch of a company established in another Member State in so far as that branch has not been wound up in accordance with the procedure laid down for winding up a domestic limited liability company, whereas such a procedure does not have to be carried out to remove a branch of a domestic company from the register? In the case of domestic companies, branches are entered only in the registration of the domestic company and that company is obliged to submit a consolidated financial statement covering the parent company and its branches, whilst branches of foreign companies are registered in the Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy (commercial register) and submit to the register only a financial statement for the branch.

         (1)  OJ 1989 L 395, p. 36.


title: Case C-531/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Fachverband der Buch- und Medienwirtschaft v LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Free movement of goods — National provisions on the obligation to sell imported books at fixed price — Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports — Justification)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Fachverband der Buch- und Medienwirtschaft v LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH
   (Case C-531/07) (1)

   (Free movement of goods - National provisions on the obligation to sell imported books at fixed price - Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports - Justification)
   2009/C 153/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fachverband der Buch- und Medienwirtschaft

      Defendant: LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Articles 3(1) EC, 10 EC, 28 EC, 30 EC, 81 EC and 151 EC — National legislation requiring importers of German language books to fix a retail sales price which cannot be lower than that fixed for the country of origin

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               National provisions which prohibit importers of German-language books from fixing a price lower than the retail price fixed or recommended by the publisher in the State of publication constitute a ‘measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports’ within the meaning of Article 28 EC.

               2.

               National provisions which prohibit importers of German-language books from fixing a price lower than the retail price fixed or recommended by the publisher in the State of publication cannot be justified under Articles 30 EC and 151 EC or by overriding requirements in the public interest.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Case T-463/11: Action brought on 23 August 2011 — Dectane v OHIM — Hella (DAYLINE)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/28

         Action brought on 23 August 2011 — Dectane v OHIM — Hella (DAYLINE)
   (Case T-463/11)
   2011/C 298/53
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dectane GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: P. Ehrlinger and T. Hagen, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hella KGaA Hueck & Co. (Lippstadt, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2011;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘DAYLINE’ for goods in Class 11 — application No 7 070 238.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Hella KGaA Hueck & Co.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘Ledayline’ for goods in Class 11.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division’s decision and refusal to register the mark as a Community trade mark.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


title: Case T-632/14: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Intercon v Commission (Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Commission decision to require repayment of the sums paid to the applicant — Contractual nature of the dispute — Article 44(1)(c) and Article 44(5a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991 — Admissibility — Scope of the audit — Documents and observations made after expiry of the prescribed periods)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Intercon v Commission
   (Case T-632/14) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Commission decision to require repayment of the sums paid to the applicant - Contractual nature of the dispute - Article 44(1)(c) and Article 44(5a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991 - Admissibility - Scope of the audit - Documents and observations made after expiry of the prescribed periods))
   (2016/C 410/15)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Intercon Sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: B. Eger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herbout-Borczak and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Principally, application based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the Commission infringed the provisions of the grant agreement No 224635 relating to financing the project ARTreat, and annulment of the Commission’s letter of 28 July 2014 informing the applicant, on the basis of an audit carried out by it, of the recovery of a sum of EUR 258 479,21 which had been unduly paid to the applicant as an EU financial contribution and, alternatively, application based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the sums paid corresponded to eligible expenditure and need not, therefore, be repaid.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Intercon sp. z o.o. to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.


title: Case T-414/13: Action brought on 8 August 2013 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO ESTATE)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/20

         Action brought on 8 August 2013 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO ESTATE)
   (Case T-414/13)
   2013/C 304/34
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kenzo (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) of 22 May 2013 given in Case R 333/2012-2;

               —

               Order the defendant 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: The word mark KENZO ESTATE for goods in Class 33 — International Registration No 953373

      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 720 706 of the word trade mark KENZO for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and annulled the contested decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (1).

      (1)  OJ L 78, p. 1


title: Case C-325/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — SBS Belgium NV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Definition of ‘communication’ and ‘public’ — Distribution of television programmes — Process known as ‘direct injection’)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/11

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — SBS Belgium NV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM)
   (Case C-325/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Definition of ‘communication’ and ‘public’ - Distribution of television programmes - Process known as ‘direct injection’))
   (2016/C 016/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SBS Belgium NV

      Defendant: Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that a broadcasting organisation does not carry out an act of communication to the public, within the meaning of that provision, when it transmits its programme-carrying signals exclusively to signal distributors without those signals being accessible to the public during, and as a result of that transmission, those distributors then sending those signals to their respective subscribers so that they may watch those programmes, unless the intervention of the distributors in question is just a technical means, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


title: Case T-75/05: Action brought on 17 February 2005 by NetScout Systems, Inc., against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/37

         Action brought on 17 February 2005 by NetScout Systems, Inc., against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-75/05)
   (2005/C 106/75)
   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 17 February 2005 by NetScout Systems, Inc., established in Westford, Massachusetts (USA), represented by M. Holah, Solicitor.
   Kye Systems Corporation, established in Taipei Hsien (Taiwan) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order that the defendant pays the applicant's costs of this appeal;

               —

               in the alternative, alter the contested decision, reject the opposition filed by Kye, allow the CTM application to go forward and order that the defendant pays the applicant's costs of this appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Netscout Systems, Inc.

               Community trade mark concerned:

               The word mark ‘NGENIUS’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 42 (Computers, computer hardware and computer software; printed matter; computer programming; …) — application No 1 830 900

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               KYE Systems Corporation

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               The national figurative mark ‘GENIUS’ for goods in class 9 (computers, disk units, printers, fax machines, …)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the trade mark application for all goods covered by it in class 9

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94


title: Case T-266/00: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Confartigianato Venezia and Others v Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/44

         Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Confartigianato Venezia and Others v Commission
   (Case T-266/00) (1)

   2011/C 347/80
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.


title: Case T-567/17: Action brought on 21 August 2017 — Disney Enterprises v EUIPO — Di Molfetta (DiSNEY FROZEN)

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/46

         Action brought on 21 August 2017 — Disney Enterprises v EUIPO — Di Molfetta (DiSNEY FROZEN)
   (Case T-567/17)
   (2017/C 347/60)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Disney Enterprises, Inc. (Burbank, California, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fabio Di Molfetta (Bisceglie, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘DiSNEY FROZEN’ — Application for registration No 11 830 965

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2017 in Case R 2342/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-615/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2011 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 29 September 2011 in Case T-442/07: Ryanair Ltd v European Commission, supported by Air One SpA

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/4

         Appeal brought on 29 November 2011 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 29 September 2011 in Case T-442/07: Ryanair Ltd v European Commission, supported by Air One SpA
   (Case C-615/11 P)
   2012/C 65/08
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan, S. Noë, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Ryanair Ltd, Air One SpA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 September 2011, notified to the Commission on 30 September 2011, in Case T-442/07 Ryanair Ltd v European Commission in so far as it declares that the Commission of the European Communities failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt a decision in respect of the transfer of the 100 Alitalia employees complained of in the letter;

               —

               reject the application for a declaration of failure to act by the Commission of the European Communities in failing to adopt a decision in respect of the transfer of the 100 Alitalia employees, complained of in the letter of 16 June 2006 sent to the Commission by Ryanair Ltd;

               —

               order Ryanair Ltd to pay the costs;

               —

               alternatively,

                           —

                           refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration;

                           —

                           reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               —

               Misinterpretation of Articles 10(1) and 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1). The General Court erred in law when it set out the criteria that determine if the Commission is in possession of information or a complaint about alleged unlawful aid;

               —

               Error in the legal qualification of Ryanair's letter of 16 June 2006. The General Court concluded that the Commission had received a complaint or information regarding alleged unlawful aid in the form of the letter of 16 June 2006. The Commission considers that in so doing the General Court erred in law by reason of a mistaken qualification of that letter;

               —

               Error in law in ascertaining whether the Commission was under a duty to act for the purposes of Article 232 EC by reference to the requirements of Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty


title: Case T-422/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2011 — Emme v Commission (Interim measures — Competition — Commission decision imposing a fine — Bank guarantee — Application to suspend the operation of a measure — Financial loss — No exceptional circumstances — No urgency)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/49

         Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2011 — Emme v Commission
   (Case T-422/10 R)
   (Interim measures - Competition - Commission decision imposing a fine - Bank guarantee - Application to suspend the operation of a measure - Financial loss - No exceptional circumstances - No urgency)
   2011/C 269/108
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Emme Holding SpA (Pescara, Italy) (represented by: G. Visconti, E. Vassallo di Castiglione, M. Siragusa, M. Beretta and P. Ferrari, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Gencarelli, V. Bottka and P. Manzini, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the operation of Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel) and to dispense the applicant from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee so as to avoid immediate recovery of the fine imposed under Article 2 of that decision.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-307/08: Action brought on 7 August 2008 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones (4 OUT Living)

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/15

         Action brought on 7 August 2008 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones (4 OUT Living)
   (Case T-307/08)
   (2008/C 260/27)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks, C. Fürsen, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones SL (Cuarte de Huerva, Spain)
   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 7 May 2008 in case R 1199/2007-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘4 OUT Living’ for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 28

      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: Spanish trade mark registration No 2 604 969 of the figurative mark ‘Living & Co’ for goods and services in classes 3, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 34 and 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a risk of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case C-661/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 23 December 2011 — Martin y Paz Diffusion SA v David Depuydt, Fabriek van Maroquinerie Gauquie SA

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 23 December 2011 — Martin y Paz Diffusion SA v David Depuydt, Fabriek van Maroquinerie Gauquie SA
   (Case C-661/11)
   2012/C 89/04
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Martin y Paz Diffusion SA

      Defendants: David Depuydt, Fabriek van Maroquinerie Gauquie SA

      Questions referred

               1.1.

               Must Article 5(1) and Article 8(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) be interpreted as meaning that the exclusive right conferred by the registered mark can definitively no longer be asserted by its proprietor against a third party, in respect of all goods covered by it at the time of registration:

                           —

                           where, for an extended period, the proprietor has shared the use of that mark with that third party in a form of co-ownership for part of the goods covered?

                           —

                           where, when that sharing was agreed, the proprietor gave the third party its irrevocable consent to use of that mark by the third party in respect of those goods?

               1.2.

               Must those articles be interpreted as meaning that application of a national rule, such as that according to which the proprietor of a right cannot exercise that right in a wrongful or abusive manner, can lead to a definitive prohibition on the exercise of that exclusive right for part of the goods covered or as meaning that that application must be restricted to penalising the wrongful or abusive exercise of that right in another way?

               2.1.

               Must Article 5(1) and Article 8(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks be interpreted as meaning that, where the proprietor of a registered mark ends its undertaking to a third party not to use that mark for certain goods and thus intends to recommence that use itself, the national court can none the less definitively prohibit it from recommencing that use of the mark on the ground that it amounts to unfair competition because of the resulting advantage to the proprietor of the publicity previously made for the mark by the third party and possible confusion in customers’ minds, or must they be interpreted as meaning that the national court must adopt a different penalty which does not definitively prohibit the proprietor from recommencing use of the mark?

               2.2.

               Must those articles be interpreted as meaning that a definitive prohibition on use by the proprietor is justified where the third party has, over a number of years, made investments in order to bring to the attention of the public the goods in respect of which the proprietor has authorised it to use the mark?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.


title: Case T-12/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2009 — Itochu v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for video games consoles and games cartridges compatible with Nintendo games consoles — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Limitation of parallel exports — Attributability of the infringement — Fines — Differential treatment — Deterrent effect — Duration of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2009 — Itochu v Commission
   (Case T-12/03) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for video games consoles and games cartridges compatible with Nintendo games consoles - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Limitation of parallel exports - Attributability of the infringement - Fines - Differential treatment - Deterrent effect - Duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure)
   2009/C 141/74
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Itochu Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: Y. Shibasaki G. van Gerven, T. Franchoo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by P. Hellström and O. Beynet, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and O. Beynet, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Articles 1, 3 and 5 of Commission Decision 2003/675/EC of 30 October 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/35.587 PO Video Games, COMP/35.706 PO Nintendo Distribution and COMP/36.321 Omega — Nintendo) (OJ 2003 L 255, p. 33), in so far as they relate to the applicant, or, in the alternative, reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on it.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Itochu Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 8.3.2003.


title: Removal from the register of C-16/96

text:
No C 252/24            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16 . 8 . 97
         Removal from the register of C-3 13/95 (*)                    removal from the register of Case C-16/96 ( reference for a
                           ( 97/C 252/49 )                             preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Karin
                                                                       Mille-Wilsmann v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen .
By order of 18 April 1997 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                        (') OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
Communities has ordered the removal from the register
of Case C-3 13/95 : Commission of the European
Communities v. Italian Republic .
(') OJ No C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 .
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-245/96 ( ')
                                                                                97/C 252/51
                                                                       By order of 15 May 1997 the President of the Court of
          Removal from the register of C-16/96 ( l )                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                           ( 97/C 252/50 )                             removal from the register of Case C-245/96 : Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
By order of 14 April 1997 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                  ' (') OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Fontainebleau (France ), Groupement d'intérêt économique
                         of 12 June 1997                               Pari Mutuel Urbain, established in Paris, Pari Mutuel
                                                                       International established in Paris, represented by Bruno
in Case T-504/93 : Tiercé Landbroke SA v. Commission of                Chain and Jerome Depondt, of the Paris Bar, with an
               the European Communities (')                            address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                       Victor Gillen, 13 Rue Aldringen — application for
(Action for annulment — Rejection of a complaint —                     annulment of the Commission Decision of 24 June 1993
Article 86 — Relevant market — Joint dominant position                 rejecting a complaint lodged by Tiercé Ladbroke SA on
— Refusal to grant a transmission licence — Article 85 (1 )            9 October 1990 (IV/33.699 ) against the principal French
           — Clause prohibiting retransmission)                        sociétes de courses ( horse-racing associations ), Pari Mutuel
                            ( 97/C 252/52 )                            Urbain and Pari Mutuel International, alleging
                                                                       infringement of Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty, and
                                                                       for an order requiring the Commission to re-examine
                                                                       that complaint forthwith — the Court of First Instance
              (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       ( Second Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed
                                                                       of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. W. Bellamy and A.
                                                                       Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
In Case T-504/93 : Tiercé Landbroke SA, established in                 judgment on 12 June 1997, in which it:
Brussels, represented by Jeremy Lever QC, Christopher
Vajda, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, and
Stephen Kon, Solicitor, London, with an address for
                                                                        1.  annuls the Commission decision contained in its letter
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Winandy and
Err, 60 Avenue Gaston Diderich, against Commission of '                     of 24 June 1 993 rejecting the applicant's complaint of
the European Communities (Agents : Julian Currall and                       9 October 1990 (IV/33.699) in so far as it considers
Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz ), supported by Société                     that the refusal of the sociétés de courses to grant the
d'encouragement et des steeple-chases de France,                            applicant a licence for the transmission of French races
established in Boulogne-Billancourt ( France ), Société                     in Belgium, as notified to the applicant by a letter
d'encouragement à l'élevage du cheval français,                             from Pari Mutuel Urbain dated 8 August 1990, was
established in Paris, Société sportive d'encouragement,                     the normal consequence of the fact that neither Pari
                                                                            Mutuel Urbain nor the sociétés de courses take bets on
established in Paris, Société de sport de France, established
in Boulogne-Billancourt ( France ), Société des courses de la               the betting market in Belgium, and therefore could not
Côte d'Azur, established in Cagnes-sur-Mer ( France ),                      be the subject of an agreement between the sociétés de
Société des courses du Pays d'Auge, established in                          courses within the meaning of Article 85 (1 ) of the
Deauville ( France ), Société des courses de Compiègne,                     Treaty;
established in Compiègne ( France ), Société des courses de
Dieppe, established in Rouxmesnil-Bouteilles ( France ),
Société des courses de Fontainebleau, established in                    2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;


title: Case C-483/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 9 August 2017 — Neculai Tarola v Minister for Social Protection

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 9 August 2017 — Neculai Tarola v Minister for Social Protection
   (Case C-483/17)
   (2017/C 347/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Neculai Tarola

      Defendant: Minister for Social Protection

      Question referred

   Where a citizen of another EU member state after his first twelve months of exercising his right of free movement arrives in the host state and works (otherwise than for a fixed term contract) for a two week period for which he is remunerated and thereafter becomes involuntarily unemployed, does that citizen thereby retain the status of a worker for no less than a further six months for the purposes of Article 7(3)(c) and Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) such as would entitle him to receive social assistance payments or, as the case may be, social security benefits on the same basis as if he were a resident citizen of the host State?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ L 158, p. 77)


title: Case T-631/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Raffinerie Heide v Commission (Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 — Decision 2011/278/EU — National implementation measures presented by Germany — Clause relating to extremely difficult cases — Freedom to conduct a business — Right to property — Proportionality)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/49

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Raffinerie Heide v Commission
      (Case T-631/13) (1)

      ((Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 - Decision 2011/278/EU - National implementation measures presented by Germany - Clause relating to extremely difficult cases - Freedom to conduct a business - Right to property - Proportionality))
      (2014/C 395/61)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Raffinerie Heide GmbH (Hemmingstedt, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, C. Hermes and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27) in so far as Article 1(1) thereof, read in conjunction with Annex I, Point A thereto, rejects the inscription of the installation with the identification code DE000000000000010 on the list of installations provided for in Article 11(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32), and the preliminary total annual amounts of emission allowances to be allocated for free to that installation

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Raffinerie Heide GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.


title: Case T-293/01: Action brought on 3 December 2001 by Donatella Ineichen against Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.2.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 44/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Applicant for the Com-       The applicant                              —      annul the decision of 29 January 2001 of the Head of
munity trade mark:                                                             Unit ADMIN B 3 fixing her place of recruitment at
                                                                               Brussels and refusing to grant her the daily subsistence
The Community trade          Word mark ‘BASS’ — application                    allowance;
mark concerned:              No 161331, registration sought
                             in respect of goods in Class 25            —      annul the implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint
                             (footwear and clothing)                           of 27 April 2001 against the original contested decision;
Proprietor of the right to   Pash Textilvertrieb und Einzelhan-         —      order the Commission to pay to the applicant the
the trade mark or sign       del GmbH                                          amounts to which she is entitled as a result of having
asserted by way of oppo-                                                       Rome as her place of recruitment, as set out in the
sition in the opposition                                                       grounds, and in particular the daily subsistence allowance,
proceedings:                                                                   with default interest at 7 % per annum, as from the date
                                                                               on which those amounts fell due until payment is made
Trade mark or sign           German mark registered under                      in full;
asserted by way of oppo-     the name ‘PASH’, registered in
sition in the opposition     order to distinguish various               —      order the Commission to pay the costs.
proceedings:                 articles in international classes 18
                             and 25
Decision of the Oppo-        Opposition dismissed                       Pleas in law and main arguments
sition Division:
Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the decision of the           The applicant was seconded to the Commission in Brussels for
Appeal:                      Opposition Division                        three years before being engaged as a member of the auxiliary
                                                                        staff. For that purpose, the applicant’s place of recruitment was
Grounds of claim:            —     Inconsistency between the            set as Rome. The applicant was subsequently engaged as a
                                   form of order sought and             member of the temporary staff for an indeterminate period,
                                   the order made, since the            with Brussels as the place of recruitment. That decision is
                                   opposition was not brought           contested by the applicant.
                                   against the ‘shoes’ men-
                                   tioned in Class 25                   In support of her application, the applicant pleads an error in
                                                                        law as regards the concept of ‘residence’ and a manifest error
                             —     Coexistence of the marks
                                                                        of assessment. According to the applicant, her residence in
                                   ‘BASS’ and ‘PASH’ on the
                                                                        Brussels was provisional during the entire period of her
                                   German market
                                                                        engagement with the Commission in Brussels. In her sub-
                             —     Misapplication       of    Ar-       mission, the facts demonstrate that her habitual residence
                                   ticle 8(1)(b) of Regulation          remained Rome. Moreover, the applicant claims that the
                                   (EC) No 40/94 (likelihood of         Commission illegally withdrew a decision giving rise to
                                   confusion).                          entitlement. Initially, the place of recruitment of the applicant
                                                                        was Rome when she took up her duties as a member of
                                                                        the temporary staff. That decision was withdrawn by the
                                                                        subsequent contested decision not to grant the applicant
                                                                        entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance.
Action brought on 3 December 2001 by Donatella Ineich-
   en against Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-293/01)                                 Action brought on 3 December 2001 by Lucı́a Aparicio
                                                                        Chofré against Commission of the European Communities
                         (2002/C 44/39)
                                                                                (Case T-294/01)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 December 2001 by Donatella
Ineichen, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Lucas, lawyer.                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case C-288/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Finanzgericht by order of that court of 31 May 2001 in the case of Ulf Thomsen against Finanzamt Flensburg

text:
C 275/8                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           29.9.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Admin-                    Is Paragraph 10(2) Nr. 2 of the Einkommensteuergesetz (EStG)
istrative d’Appel de Douai, France, by judgment of that                    as it stood in 1992, which makes the tax deductibility of
court of 12 July 2001 in the case of Isabel Burbaud v                      contributions to insurance undertakings conditional upon the
           Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité                       undertaking having its seat or its management in Germany or
                                                                           having been granted authorisation to carry on business in
                                                                           Germany, compatible with Articles 39, 43 and 49 (ex
                           (Case C-285/01)
                                                                           Articles 48, 52 and 59) of the EC Treaty?
                          (2001/C 275/15)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour Adminis-
trative d’Appel de Douai, (Administrative Court of Appeal,
Douai), France, of 12 July 2001, which was received at the
Court Registry on 18 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Isabel Burbaud v Ministère de l’Emploi et de la
Solidarité, on the following questions:
(1) Is a training course in a practical training school for                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
      public servants, such as the ENSP (École Nationale de la            Grande Instance, Dax, by judgment of that court of 2 July
      Santé Publique; National School of Public Health), leading           2001 in the case of Ministère Public against Jean-Marie
      to establishment in the public service, to be treated in the                                       Perchicot
      same way as a diploma within the meaning of Council
      Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) and, if so,
      how was the equivalence of the diplomas from the                                               (Case C-289/01)
      National School of Public Health, Lisbon, and the National
      School of Public Health, Rennes, to be assessed?
                                                                                (2001/C 275/17)
(2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
      may the competent authority make admission to the
      public service of public servants from another Member
      State who rely on an equivalent diploma subject to                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      conditions, and in particular subject to passing the                 European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
      School’s entrance examination, even for those who have               Grande Instance (Regional Court), Dax, of 2 July 2001, which
      sat a similar competition in their country of origin?                was received at the Court Registry on 20 July 2001, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère Public against Jean-
                                                                           Marie Perchicot on the following question:
(1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
    system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
    on completion of professional education and training of at least
    three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16).
                                                                           Where a vehicle is hired without a driver as provided for by
                                                                           Article 2 of Council Directive 84/647/EEC (1) is the lessor, a
                                                                           French road haulage company, permitted:
                                                                           —     to obtain the carriage authorisations necessary within
                                                                                French territory on behalf of the lessee, a road haulage
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Schleswig-                             company governed by French (sic) law
Holsteinisches Finanzgericht by order of that court of
31 May 2001 in the case of Ulf Thomsen against Finanzamt
                              Flensburg                                    —     to manage on behalf of the lessee, a road haulage
                                                                                company governed by Spanish law, the tachograph discs
                                                                                of the drivers employed by that company?
                           (Case C-288/01)
                          (2001/C 275/16)
                                                                           (1) Council Directive 84/647/EEC of 19 December 1984 on the use
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road
European Communities by order of the Schleswig-Holstei-                        (OJ L 335, 22.12.1984, p. 72).
nisches Finanzgericht (Finance Court, Schleswig-Holstein) of
31 May 2001, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ulf Thomsen v
Finanzamt Flensburg on the following question:


title: Case C-254/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 15 May 2017 — Regina Lorenz and Prisca Sprecher v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 15 May 2017 — Regina Lorenz and Prisca Sprecher v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-254/17)
   (2017/C 221/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Regina Lorenz, Prisca Sprecher

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-286/07: Order of the General Court of 30 June 2010 — Torres v OHIM — Torres de Anguix (A TORRES de ANGUIX)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/53

         Order of the General Court of 30 June 2010 — Torres v OHIM — Torres de Anguix (A TORRES de ANGUIX)
   (Case T-286/07) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 234/94
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case T-714/13: Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Gold Crest v OHIM (MIGHTY BRIGHT)

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/17

         Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Gold Crest v OHIM (MIGHTY BRIGHT)
   (Case T-714/13)
   2014/C 61/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gold Crest LLC (Santa Barbara, United States) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2013 given in Case R 2038/2012-2;

               —

               Declare the Community trade mark applied for eligible for registration;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MIGHTY BRIGHT’ for goods and services in Class 11 — Community trade mark application No 10 853 141

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 65(2) CTMR.


title: Case T-88/06: Action brought on  17 March 2006  v Dorel Juvenile Group/OHIM

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/28

         Action brought on 17 March 2006 v Dorel Juvenile Group/OHIM
   (Case T-88/06)
   (2006/C 108/50)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. (Canton, USA) [represented by: Gesa Simon, lawyer]

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 11 January 2006 (Case R 616/2004-2) and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SAFETY 1ST’ for goods in classes 12, 20, 21 and 28 — application No 2 258 697

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the trade mark applied for is not devoid of any distinctive character in respect of the goods applied for.