ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Under Article 78(1) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, ‘[t]he … proprietor of a Community trade mark … who, in spite of all due care required by the circumstances having been taken, was unable to observe a time-limit vis-à-vis the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) shall, upon application, have his rights re-established if the non-observance in question has the direct consequence, by virtue of the provisions of this Regulation, of causing the loss of any right … ’.

It is apparent from that provision that restitutio in integrum is subject to two requirements, the first being that the party has exercised all due care required by the circumstances, and the second that the non-observance by the party has the direct consequence of causing the loss of any right or means of redress.

It is also apparent from that provision that the requirement to exercise due care lies in the first instance with the proprietor of the trade mark. Thus, if the proprietor delegates administrative tasks relating to the renewal of a mark, it must ensure that the person chosen offers the assurance necessary to enable it to be assumed that those tasks will be carried out properly.

Since those tasks have been delegated, the person chosen is subject to the requirement to exercise due care just as much as the proprietor. Since that person acts on behalf of and in the name of the proprietor, its actions must be regarded as being the proprietor’s actions.

(see paras 12-15)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 15 September 2009 — Parfums Christian Dior v OHIM — Consolidated Artists (MANGO adorably)

(Case T-308/08)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark MANGO adorably — Earlier national and international word marks J’ADORE and ADIORABLE — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Risk of unfair advantage being taken of the repute of the earlier marks — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49, 50)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Link between the marks (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 62-64)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2008 (Case R 1162/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Parfums Christian Dior and Consolidated Artists BV.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Consolidated Artists BV Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark MANGO adorably for goods in Class 3 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Parfums Christian Dior Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark registration No 33209849 of the word mark ADIORABLE for goods in Class 3; French trade mark registration No 94536564 of the word mark J’ADORE for various goods, amongst which goods in Class 3; international trade mark registration No 811001 of the word mark ADIORABLE for various goods, amongst which goods in Class 3; international trade mark registration No 687422 of the word mark J’ADORE for various goods, amongst which goods in Class 3 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 26-29, 32

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 591/2008‑4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BEST BUY as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Media-Saturn-Holding GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 27, 50-51

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2008 (R 706/2008‑1) concerning the international registration, designating the European Community, of the sign CLEARWIFI.

Information relating to the case

>lt>8

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Clearwire Corporation to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 52

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 July 2008 (Case R 71/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Unión de Agricoltores, SA and Inter-Nett 2000 Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft.

Information relating to the case

>lt>10

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Inter-Nett 2000 Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft (Inter-Nett 2000 kft) to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 45)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 53, 62)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2007 (Case R 1515/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG and Travel Service a.s.

Information relating to the case

>lt>10

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Travel Service a.s. to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 55

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2008 (Case R 1636/2007-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Diafarm, SA and 4care AG.

Information relating to the case

>lt>21

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders 4care AG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 8(5) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 40, 64, 79, 88)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Condition – Link between the marks – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 65-66)

3. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Proof to be adduced by proprietor – Future, non-hypothetical risk of unfair advantage or damage (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 82)

4. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 83-85)

5. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – Aim (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see para. 92)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTIONS brought against, in Case T-345/08, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 May 2008 (Case R 863/2007-1), relating to cancellation proceedings between Allergan, Inc. and Helena Rubinstein SNC, and, in Case T‑357/08, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 June 2008 (Case R 865/2007-1), relating to cancellation proceedings between Allergan, Inc. and L’Oréal SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Helena Rubinstein SNC to pay the costs in Case T‑345/08;

3. Orders L’Oréal SA to pay the costs in Case T‑357/08.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Definitive refusal to accept responsibility for certain expenses – Need for a prior inter partes procedure (see paras 61, 132)

2. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Communication to Member States of the results of investigations by control services – Substantive conditions (Council Regulation No 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c); Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8(1), first para.) (see paras 62-69)

3. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Challenge by the Member State concerned – Burden of proof – Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (see paras 91-92, 96-97)

4. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Oils and fats – Olive oil (Council Regulations Nos 154/75, 2261/84, Art. 14(3), and 1638/98, Art. 2(1) to (3); Commission Regulation No 2366/98, Art. 8(b)) (see paras 98-100, 103-106)

5. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Assessment of losses incurred by the Fund – Challenge by the Member State concerned – Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 729/70) (see paras 108-109)

6. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Limitation of the refusal of financing – Twenty-four month period – Point from which time starts to run – Communication by the Commission of the results of verifications (Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 7(4)) (see paras 118-123, 138)

7. Agriculture – EAGGF – Grant of aids and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an efficient system of administrative controls and spot checks – Unreliable controls – Disallowance by the Fund (Commission Regulation No 2419/2001, Art. 15) (see para. 152)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/68/EC of 20 December 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2008 L 18, p. 12), in so far as it relates to certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the olive oil and arable crop sectors.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 27-29)

2. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Application of the criteria to the case in question (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 30-32)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2008 (Case R 328/2003-2) relating to opposition proceedings between J. Capela & Irmãos, L da and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 June 2008 (Case R 328/2003-2);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and those incurred by Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‑owned subsidiaries (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 53(1)) (see paras 38-42)

2. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Legal person responsible for the running of the undertaking at the time of the infringement – Disappearanc e – Disappearance through absorption by another undertaking – Absorbed company being a former parent company having had liability for its own conduct attributed to it – Attribution of liability to the acquirer – Lawfulness (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 55-62)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.695 – Sodium chlorate) in so far as it concerns Uralita, SA.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Uralita, SA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21-22, 58)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Weak distinctiveness of the earlier mark – Effect (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 57)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 1388/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between C More Entertainment AB and NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid – Concept – Legal nature – Interpretation on the basis of objective factors – Judicial review – Scope (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 37-38)

2. State aid – Concept – Assessment of all factors relevant to the transaction at issue and its context – Sale of land part of a series of linked operations designed to allow implementation of a town planning scheme (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 56-58)

3. State aid – Concept – Assessment according to the criterion of the private investor – Assessment of all factors relevant to the transaction at issue and its context – Sale of land by a public authority to a private person despite the existence of an offer at a higher price – Comparability between the two offers – Criteria for assessment (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 61-63, 65, 72, 76)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/366/EC of 30 January 2008 on State aid C 35/06 (ex NN 37/06) implemented by Sweden for Konsum Jämtland Ekonomisk Förening (OJ 2008 L 126, p. 3).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2008/366/EC of 30 January 2008 on State aid C 35/06 (ex NN 37/06) implemented by Sweden for Konsum Jämtland Ekonomisk Förening;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Konsum Nord ekonomisk förening.
Keywords



Keywords

EC Treaty — General and final provisions — Competence of Member States to adopt measures designed to ensure national security — Production and trade in armaments — Specific procedural regime established by Article 298 EC — Adverse effect on competition produced by a scheme of aids granted for non-military activities — Not applicable (Arts 86 EC, 88 EC, 296 EC and 298 EC) (see paras 38, 43-44, 56-60)

2. State aid — Concept — Private investor test — Assessment having regard to all relevant factors of the disputed operation and its context (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 96, 101, 105)

3. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Shipbuilding aid — Directive 90/684 — Financial restructuring of shipyards — Condition of compatibility of the aid with the common market — Investment and privatisation plan — Need for actual completion of the plan — Reference in the decision approving an aid scheme to the directive — No express mention in that decision of the said condition — Breach of the principle of legal certainty — None (Art. 88(3) EC; Council Directive 90/684, Art. 10(2)) (see paras 117-118, 128-131, 137-138)

4. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Shipbuilding aid — Directive 90/684 — Financial restructuring of shipyards — Condition of compatibility of the aid with the common market — Investment and privatisation plan — Need for actual completion of the plan — Actual payment by the purchasers of the price of the shares (Art. 88(3) EC; Council Directive 90/684, Art. 10(2)) (see paras 148, 153-154, 158, 162)

5. State aid — Regulation No 659/1999 — Misuse of aid — Concept — Member State not complying with conditions imposed by the Commission for approval of the aid — Inclusion (Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 1(g), 16 and 23) (see paras 164-165)

6. State aid — Examination by the Commission — No observations by the persons concerned — Not relevant to the validity of the Commission decision — No obligation to examine of the Commission’s own motion matter not expressly raised (Art. 88(2) EC) (see para. 174)

7. State aid — Commission decision — Judicial review — Limits — Assessment of legality by reference to information available at the time of adoption of the decision (Arts 88(3) EC and 230 EC) (see para. 175)

8. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Administrative procedure — Duration of the procedure between conditional approval of aid and the final decision declaring it incompatible with the common market — Commission informed late of non-compliance with a condition for approval of the aid — Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — None (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 182-187)

9. State aid — Administrative procedure — Obligation on the Commission to put the parties concerned on notice to submit their observations — Parties excluded from defence rights (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 192-194)

10. State aid — Concept — Aid granted in the form of a loan — Fixing of the interest rate enabling the amount of the aid to be calculated — Article 11(3) of Regulation No 794/2004 — Irrelevant (Commission Regulation No 794/2004) (see para. 254)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Review of legality — Criteria — Account taken only of the factual and legal elements existing at the date on which the contested measure was adopted (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 70)

2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement borne by the Commission — Extent of the burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 83, 130)

3. Union law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Presumption of innocence — Procedures in competition matters — Decision finding an infringement but not imposing a fine — Applicability (Art. 81(1) EC; Art. 6(2) EU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48(1)) (see paras 84-88)

4. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Means of proof — Reliance on a body of evidence — Degree of evidential value necessary as regards items of evidence viewed in isolation — Evidence based solely on the conduct of undertakings — Evidential obligations of undertakings disputing the reality of the infringement — Obligations of the Commission challenging the plausibility of the explanations proposed by the undertakings (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 89-93, 99, 153)

5. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Agreements which continue to produce their effects after they have formally ceased to be in force — Application Article 81 EC (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 115)

6. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Concerted practice — Parallel conduct — Presumption that a concertation exists — Limits — Refusal by national copyright management societies to allow a user established in another Member State direct access to their repertoire — Adverse effect on competition (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 129)

7. Actions for annulment — Judicial review — Limits on jurisdiction (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 175)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Irish Music Rights Organisation Ltd;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.