ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Surrender, revocation and invalidity

–

Relative grounds of invalidity

–

Registration contrary to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 52(1)(a)) (see paras 30, 47-48, 50-51

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 September 2007 (Case R 293/2007-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Cabel Hall Citrus Ltd and Casur S. Coop. Andaluza.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Cabel Hall Citrus Ltd to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to act – Institution called upon to act – Conditions – Clear and express request – Letter of formal notice addressed to the Commission listing and complaining of the existence of various aid measures incompatible with the common market – Admissibility (Arts 87 EC, 88(2) EC and 232 EC) (see paras 22-26, 41)

2. Actions for failure to act – Commission’s duty to act – Obligation to examine information concerning allegedly unlawful aid – Obligation either to inform the party concerned where the grounds are insufficient, or to adopt a decision at the conclusion of the preliminary phase of the investigation – Failure to act (Art. 232 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 4, 10(1) and 20(2)) (see paras 28-30, 37-38, 50-52, 67-68)

3. State aid – Examination of complaints – Obligations of the Commission – Obligation to examine information concerning allegedly unlawful aid – No formal requirements for lodging a complaint (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 10(1)) (see paras 32-34)

4. Actions for failure to act – Commission’s duty to act – Obligation to examine information concerning allegedly unlawful aid – Conditions – Existence of a complaint – Allegedly unlawful character of the aid measures in question having to be apparent from the information supplied by the party concerned (Art. 232 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 10(1)) (see paras 45-47, 62-64, 74-76)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in unlawfully failing to define its position on the applicant’s complaints concerning, first, aid allegedly granted by the Italian Republic to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana and, second, an alleged infringement of competition law.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. 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 (i) the transfer of the 100 Alitalia employees, complained of in the letter of 16 June 2006 sent to the Commission by Ryanair Ltd, (ii) the compensation granted following the attacks of 11 September, complained of in the letters of 3 November and 13 December 2005 sent to the Commission by Ryanair, and (iii) the reductions in airport charges at hub airports, from which Alitalia, in particular, is claimed to have benefited, complained of in those letters of 3 November and 13 December 2005;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each of the parties, including Air One SpA, to bear its own costs.
No provision of Regulation No 659/1999, laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, allows the Commission to re-open a formal investigation procedure that has been closed or to adopt a new decision without first revoking or withdrawing the closure decision.

Admittedly, Regulation No 659/1999 does not expressly prohibit such a re-opening of the procedure. Nevertheless, that would be contrary to the principle of legal certainty and contrary to the spirit of that regulation, recital 3 of which makes clear that the need to increase legal certainty was one of the reasons for its adoption, and recital 9 of which indicates that formal investigation procedures are brought to a close by a ‘final’ decision.

First, such a re-opening of the procedure would imply the coexistence in the legal order of two incompatible decisions. Moreover, to allow the Commission to re-open a formal investigation procedure that has been closed and to adopt a new decision without first revoking or withdrawing the closure decision would enable the Commission to go back on its decisions at any time and would therefore deprive the parties concerned by an investigation procedure that has been closed of all legal certainty regarding their legal position.

Consequently, the annulment of a decision closing a formal investigation procedure by the EU judicature must be regarded, in the absence of any withdrawal or revocation of that decision, as a necessary and formal pre-condition of the re-opening of that procedure. Otherwise, the parties concerned by the formal investigation procedure would be placed in a position of uncertainty regarding the nature of the decision re-opening the procedure which would be incompatible with the need to increase legal certainty, which was one of the reasons for the adoption of Regulation No 659/1999.

(see paras 50-52, 62)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 4 November 2008 – Group Lottuss v OHIM – Ugly (COYOTE UGLY)

(Case T-161/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the figurative Community mark COYOTE UGLY – Earlier Community word mark COYOTE UGLY – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 25-26, 35, 37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 March 2007 (Joined Cases R 165/2006-2 and R 194/2006-2) concerning an opposition procedure between Ugly Inc. and Group Lottuss Corp., SL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Group Lottuss Corp., SL Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark COYOTE UGLY for goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 42 – Application No 2428795 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ugly, Inc. Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark COYOTE UGLY for goods in Classes 14, 16, 21, 25, 32 and 34, and earlier, well-known, unregistered word and figurative marks COYOTE UGLY for goods and services in Classes 14, 16, 21, 25, 32, 33, 34, 41 and 42. Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld; application for Community trade mark refused in relation to services in Class 42. Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled in so far as it rejected the opposition to ‘entertainment services and services for discotheques and parties’ in Class 41 referred to in the application for registration; application for registration dismissed for those services





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Group Lottuss Corp., SL to bear all its own costs, to pay four fifths of the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and to pay four fifths of the costs of Ugly Inc.;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 16 December 2008 – Deichmann‑Schuhe v OHIM – Design for Woman (DEITECH)

(Case T-86/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for figurative Community trade mark DEITECH – Earlier national and international figurative trade marks DEI-tex – Relative ground for refusal – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 4(2) and (3)) (see paras 36-37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2007 (Case R 791/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Heinrich Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH & Co. KG and Design for Woman SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Design for Woman SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark DEITECH for goods in Classes 18 and 25 – Application No 3378643 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Heinrich Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH & Co. KG Marks or signs cited in opposition: German and international figurative marks DEI-tex for goods in Class 25; opposition to the application for registration being brought against registration for that class Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Partially annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 January 2007 (Case R 791/2006-2) in so far as it finds that genuine use of the earlier marks has not been proven in respect of ‘shoes’ in Class 25 covered by the application for a Community trade mark;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2008 – Galderma v OHIM – Lelas (Nanolat)

(Case T-6/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark Nanolat – Earlier national word mark TANNOLACT – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2006 (Case R 146/2006-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Galderma SA and Mr Tihomir Lelas.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Tihomir Lelas Community trade mark sought: Word mark Nanolat for goods in Classes 1, 3 and 5 – Application No 3088986 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Galderma SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: German Word mark TANNOLACT for goods in Class 5 Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 – Offshore Legends v OHIM – Acteon (OFFSHORE LEGENDS in black and white and OFFSHORE LEGENDS in blue, black and green)

(Joined Cases T-305/07 and T-306/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for two Community figurative marks OFFSHORE LEGENDS, one in black and white, the other in blue, black and green – Earlier national figurative mark OFFSHORE 1 – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of goods and signs – Absence of request for proof of genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 in conjunction with Article 15(2)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) and point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

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 60-61, 98-103)

Re:

Two actions brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1031/2006-2 and Case R 1038/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Acteon and Offshore Legends.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Offshore Legends Community trade mark sought: Figurative marks OFFSHORE LEGENDS in black and white and OFFSHORE LEGENDS in blue, black and green for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 20, 24, 25, 28 and 35 – Application Nos 3160231 and 2997021 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Acteon Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and international figurative mark OFFSHORE 1 for products in Classes 16, 18 and 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed in respect of all the contested goods Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division, to the extent that it dismissed the opposition in respect of products in Classes 18 and 25





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 28 October 2009 – Juwel Aquarium v OHIM – Potschak (Panorama)

(Case T-339/07)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark Panorama – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity –Absolute grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 29-37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 June 2007 (Case R 214/2006-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Christian Potschak and Juwel Aquarium GmbH & Co. KG.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark Panorama for goods in Classes 11, 16 and 20 – Community trade mark No 2771087 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Juwel Aquarium GmbH & Co. KG Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Christian Potschak Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for declaration of invalidity dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division and partial annulment of the Community trade mark





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 23 September 2009 – Cohausz v OHIM – Izquierdo Faces (acopat)

(Case T-409/07)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community figurative mark acopat – Earlier national word marks COPAT – Relative ground for refusal – No genuine use of the earlier marks – Article 56(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 56(2)) (see paras 37-77)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2007 (Case R 289/2006-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Helge B. Cohausz and José Izquierdo Faces.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark subject to an application for validity: Figurative mark acopat for services in Classes 35 and 42 – Community trade mark No 1643782 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: José Izquierdo Faces Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Helge B. Cohausz Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: National word mark COPAT for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 41 and 42 Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Cancellation Division’s decision and dismissal of the request for a declaration of invalidity





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 December 2009 – Cofac v Commission

(Case T-159/07)

ESF – Reduction of financial assistance – Training schemes – Rights of the defence – Right to a fair hearing

Social policy – European Social Fund – Financial assistance for vocational training – Decision to reduce assistance initially granted – Defence rights of beneficiaries – Scope (see paras 33-35, 37, 52)

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Decision D(2004) 24253 of 9 November 2004 reducing the amount of assistance granted to the applicant by the European Social Fund by Decision No C(87) 0860 of 30 April 1987 for training schemes (file No 870927 P1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 – Italy v Commission

(Joined Cases T-166/07 and T-285/07)

Rules on the use of languages – Notice of open competitions for the recruitment of administrators and assistants – Publication in three official languages – Amendments – Publication in all the official languages – Choice of the second language from three languages – Regulation No 1 – Articles 27, 28 and 29(1) of the Staff Regulations – Article 1(1) and (2) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations – Duty to state reasons – Principle of non-discrimination – Misuse of power

1. European Communities – Rules on languages – Regulation No 1 – Scope (Council Regulation No 1) (see paras 52-54)

2. European Communities – Rules on languages – No general principle giving each citizen the right to have any document capable of affecting his interests drafted in his own language (Council Regulation No 1) (see para. 73)

3. Officials – Competitions – Notice of competition – Publication in the Official Journal only in certain official languages (see paras 77-85)

4. Officials – Competitions – Notice of competition – Full publication in the Official Journal only in certain official languages (see paras 91, 93-94)

5. Officials – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions (see paras 110-112)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/94/07 for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of Administrators (AD 5) in the field of information, communication and the media (OJ 2007 C 45 A, p. 3) and Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AST/37/07 for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of Assistants (AST 3) in the field of communication and information (OJ 2007 C 45 A, p. 15), and Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/95/07 for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of Administrators (AD 5) in the field of information science (library/documentation) (OJ 2007 C 103 A, p. 7).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 18 February 2011 – P.P.TV v OHIM – Rentrak (PPT)

(Case T-118/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark PPT – Earlier national figurative mark PPTV – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 24, 75)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2007 (Case R 1040/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between P.P.TV – Publicidade de Portugal e Televisão, SA and Rentrak Corp.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Rentrak Corp. Community trade mark sought: Word mark PPT for services in Class 41 – Application No 1758382 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: P.P.TV – Publicidade de Portugal e Televisão, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark PPTV for services in Class 41 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration of a Community trade mark rejected Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division’s decision and rejection of the opposition





Operative part

The Court:

1.Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — Slovakia v Commission

(Case T-247/07)

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Measures to be adopted on account of the accession of new Member States — 2003 Act of Accession — Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and financial consequences of their elimination — Objective pursued by a provision of primary law — Decision 2007/361/EC

1. Accession of new Member States to the Communities — 2003 Act of Accession — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures concerning trade in agricultural products — Assessment of excess stocks — Attenuation of the obligation to eliminate excess stocks (2003 Act of Accession, Annex IV, Section 4(2); Commission Regulation No 1972/2003) (see para. 30)

2. Accession of new Member States to the Communities 2003 Act of Accession — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures concerning trade in agricultural products — Elimination by new Member States of their excess stocks — Concept — Commission’s margin of discretion (2003 Act of Accession, Annex IV, Section 4(2)) (see paras 40-48)

3. Accession of new Member States to the Communities — 2003 Act of Accession — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures concerning trade in agricultural products — Duty of new Member States to eliminate their excess stocks — Commission decision imposing a payment obligation not designed to cover the costs of eliminating surpluses from the internal market — Incompatibility with Annex IV, Section 4(2) of the Act of Accession — Annulment (2003 Act of Accession, Annex IV, Section 4(2)) (see paras 49-52, 75-77, 79-80)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2007 L 123, p. 14), in so far as it concerns the Slovak Republic.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, in so far as it concerns the Slovak Republic;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by the Slovak Republic;