In Case T-494/13, action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2013 (Case R 1192/2012-4), and, in Case T-495/13, action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2013 (Case R 1193/2012-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Inceda Holding GmbH and Sales Solutions GmbH.

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 November 2010 in Case T-404/09 Deutsche Bahn v OHIM, by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision refusing to register a colour sign consisting of a combination of the colours grey and red as a Community trade mark for certain services in Class 39 — Distinctive character of a sign which is a ...[+++]combination of colours

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 March 2009 in Case T-191/07 Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) by which that Court dismissed an action brought by the applicant for the word mark “BUDWEISER” for goods in class 32 seeking annulment of Decision R 299/2006-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2007, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of the mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the international figurative and word marks “BUDWEISER” a ...[+++]nd “Budweiser Budvar” for goods in classes 31 and 32.

By applications lodged at the Court Registry on 6 December 2001, Procter Gamble Company (‘Procter Gamble’) appealed pursuant to Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice against the judgments of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-128/00 Procter Gamble v OHIM (Square tablet with inlay) [2001] ECR II-2785 (‘Case T-128/00’) and Case T‑129/00 Procter Gamble v OHIM (Rectangular tablet with inlay) [2001] ECR II-2793 (‘Case T‑129/00’), (together hereinafter referred to as ‘the judgments under appeal’), by which the Court of First Instance partially dismissed its actions for annulment of the decisions of the Third Board ...[+++]of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (‘OHIM’) of 8 March 2000 (Cases R‑506/1999‑1 and R‑508/1999‑1), which had rejected its appeals against the refusal to register as Community trade marks three-dimensional tablets for washing machines or dishwashers (‘the contested decisions’).

The EU should work with the neighbours to facilitate common management of migration flows and border transit and to address trans-border organised crime, including illicit trafficking, as well as corruption, fraud, environmental, nuclear issues and communicable diseases.

2. Where an action referred to in paragraph 1 is related to an action in civil and commercial matters against the same defendant, the liquidator may bring both actions in the courts of the Member State within the territory of which the defendant is domiciled, or, where the action is brought against several defendants, in the courts of the Member State within the territory of which any of them is domiciled, provided that that court has jurisdiction pursuant to the rules of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001.