You are on page 1of 2

28.8.

2010 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/19

Operative part of the order 2. The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) is ordered to pay the costs.
1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Kaul GmbH shall pay the costs.


(1) OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.

(1) OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.

Order of the Court of 12 May 2010 — Pigasos Alieftiki


Naftiki Etairia v Council of the European Union and
European Commission
Order of the Court of 23 April 2010 — Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) v Frosch Touristik GmbH, DSR touristik GmbH (Case C-451/09 P) (1)

(Case C-332/09 P) (1) (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Proof of Community


origin of products fished by a vessel owned by a company
registered under Greek law — Failure to adopt provisions
(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) permitting the customs authorities of the Member States to
No 40/94 — Community word mark FLUGBÖRSE — accept documents issued by a non-Member State, other than
Invalidity proceedings — Material date for the examination form T2M)
of an absolute ground for invalidity)
(2010/C 234/29)
(2010/C 234/28)
Language of the case: Greek
Language of the case: German

Parties
Parties
Appellant: Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia (represented by: N.
Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market Skandamis and E. Perakis, dikigoroi)
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, acting
as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union


Other parties to the proceedings: Frosch Touristik GmbH (repre­
(represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and M. Balta, acting as
sented by: H. Lauf, Rechtsanwalt), DSR touristik GmbH
Agents), European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia
and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Re:
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber) of 3 June 2009 in Case T-189/07 Frosch Touristik v Re:
OHIM — DSR touristik (FLUGBÖRSE), by which the Court
annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of 22 March 2007 dismissing the appeal by the proprietor of (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 in Case T-162/07
the Community word mark ‘FLUGBÖRSE’ against the decision Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia v Council and Commission, in
of the Cancellation Division declaring that mark partially invalid which that Court dismissed an action for damages to
— Determination of the material date for the examination of an compensate for the damage alleged to have been suffered by
absolute ground for invalidity in invalidity proceedings the applicant as a result of the fact that the Council and the
Commission did not adopt provisions enabling the customs
authorities of a Member State, in this case the Greek customs
authorities, to accept as proof of the Community nature of
products fished by a Greek vessel belonging to the applicant
Operative part of the order documents issued by a third State other than the T2M form
provided for in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2
1. The appeal is dismissed. July 1993 (JO 1993 L 253, p. 1)
C 234/20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 28.8.2010

Operative part of the order Parties to the main proceedings


1. The appeal is dismissed. Applicant: KHS AG

2. Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia is ordered to pay the costs. Defendant: Winfried Schulte

(1) OJ C 24, 30.1.2010. Question referred


Is Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) to be interpreted as
precluding national legislation and/or practices under which
entitlement to minimum paid annual leave expires at the end
of the reference period and/or carry-over period even in the case
where the worker has been unfit for work over a prolonged
period (and that prolonged period of unfitness for work has the
Appeal brought on 11 December 2009 by Hubert Ségaud result that that worker could have accumulated entitlement to
against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth minimum leave for several years if the possibility of carrying
Chamber) of 29 October 2009 in Case T-249/09 Ségaud v over such entitlement had not been limited in time)? If that
European Commission question is answered in the negative, must the possibility of
carrying over leave entitlement exist for a period of at least
(Case C-514/09 P) 18 months?

(2010/C 234/30)

Language of the case: French


(1) Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the
Parties organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).
Appellant: Hubert Ségaud (represented by: J.-P Ekeu, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the


Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 May
2010 — Mesopotamia Broadcast A/S METV v Federal
By order of 21May 2010, the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) Republic of Germany
dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Ségaud to bear his own
costs.
(Case C-244/10)

(2010/C 234/32)

Language of the case: German

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Referring court


Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Germany) lodged on 4 May Bundesverwaltungsgericht
2010 — KHS AG v Winfried Schulte

(Case C-214/10)

(2010/C 234/31) Parties to the main proceedings

Language of the case: German Applicant: Mesopotamia Broadcast A/S METV

Referring court
Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany