ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/29

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Vitro Corporativo v OHIM — VKR Holding (Vitro)

(Case T-412/06) (1)

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

(2009/C 32/54)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV (Garza García, Nuevo Léon, Mexico) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Laporta Insa, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: VKR Holding A/S (Søborg, Denmark)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 October 2006 (Case R 1364/2005-2) concerning opposition proceedings between VKR Holding A/S and Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/23

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Ercros v OHIM

(Case T-315/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark TAI CROS - Earlier national word marks CROS, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA CROS and ERCROS - Earlier national figurative marks CROS - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 6/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ercros, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Thierie, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Degussa GmbH, formerly Degussa AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: S. Schäffler, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2006 (Case R 29/2006-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Ercros, SA and Degussa GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ercros, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 January 2006 (Case R 931/2005-1) in so far as it dismisses the appeal brought by Zuffa, LLC, on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) N0 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/22

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 January 2009 — giropay v OHIM (GIROPAY)

(Case T-399/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark GIROPAY - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 55/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: giropay GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 October 2006 (Case R 308/2005-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark GIROPAY as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders giropay GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/39

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2009 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-21/06) (1)

(State aid - Digital terrestrial television - Aid granted by the German authorities to broadcasters which use the digital terrestrial television network (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Principles of sound administration and proportionality - Rights of the defence)

2009/C 282/72

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents, assisted by G. Quardt, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and K. Gross, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/513/EC of 9 November 2005 on the State Aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 14).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 86, of 8.4.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 193/18

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — Operator ARP v Commission

(Case T-291/06) (1)

(State aid - Scheme for restructuring aid granted by the Republic of Poland to a steel producer - Decision declaring the aid to be in part incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Protocol No 8 on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Concept of beneficiary - Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999)

2009/C 193/25

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Operator ARP sp. z o.o. (Warsaw Poland) (represented: initially, by J. Szymanowska, subsequently, by J. Szymanowska and P. Rosiak, and, finally, by P. Rosiak, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/937/EC of 5 July 2005 on State aid C 20/04 (ex NN 25/04) in favour of Huta Częstochowa S.A. (OJ 2006 L 366, p. 1) to the extent to which it declares some of that aid to be incompatible with the common market and orders the Republic of Poland to effect its recovery.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Commission Decision 2006/937/EC of 5 July 2005 on State aid C 20/04 (ex NN 25/04) in favour of Huta Częstochowa S.A. in so far as it concerns Operator ARP sp. z o.o.;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Tomra Systems and Others v Commission

(Case T-155/06) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Market for machines for the collection of used beverage containers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement - Exclusivity agreements, quantity commitments and loyalty rebates forming part of a strategy of excluding competitors from the market - Fine - Proportionality)

(2010/C 288/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Tomra Systems ASA (Asker, Norway); Tomra Europe AS (Asker); Tomra Systems GmbH (Hilden, Germany); Tomra Systems BV (Apeldoorn, Netherlands); Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH (Vienna, Austria); Tomra Systems AB (Sollentuna, Sweden); and Tomra Butikksystemer AS (Asker) (represented by: initially, A. Ryan, Solicitor, and J. Midthjell, lawyer, and, subsequently, by A. Ryan and N. Frey, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 734 final of 29 March 2006 relating to proceedings under Article 82 [EC] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E 1/38.113 — Prokent Tomra)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB and Tomra Butikksystemer AS to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/39

Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Foshan City Nanhai Golden Step Industrial v Council

(Case T-410/06) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Calculation of the constructed normal value - Export price - Rights of the defence - Injury - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

2010/C 113/60

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foshan City Nanhai Golden Step Industrial Co., Ltd (Lishui, China) (represented by: I. MacVay, Solicitor, R. Thompson QC, and K. Beal, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, acting as Agents) and Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented; initially by P. Vlaemminck, G. Zonnekeyn and S. Verhulst and subsequently by P. Vlaemminck and A. Hubert, lawyers)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Foshan City Nanhai Golden Step Industrial Co., Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission and Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 211/22

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission

(Case T-206/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for methacrylates - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Rights of the defence - Presumption of innocence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of equal treatment - Principle that penalties must fit the offence - Principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege - Principle of sound administration - Principle of legal certainty - Misuse of powers - Fines - Attribution of liability for payment within a group of companies)

2011/C 211/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Total and Elf Aquitaine (Courbevoie, France) and Elf Aquitaine SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Arbault and V. Bottka, subsequently V. Bottka and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Articles 1(c) and (d), 2(b), 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) and, in the alternative, amendment of Article 2(b) of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/22

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Aalberts Industries and Others v Commission

(Case T-385/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Single and continuous infringement - Participation in the infringement)

2011/C 145/34

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Aalberts Industries NV (Utrecht, Netherlands); Comap SA, formerly Aquatis France SAS (La Chapelle-Saint-Mesmin, France); and Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG (Argenbühl-Eisenharz, Germany) (represented initially by R. Wesseling and M. van der Woude, and subsequently by R. Wesseling, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis, R. Sauer and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings), and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings) in so far as it finds that Aalberts Industries NV, Comap SA, formerly Aquatis France SAS, and Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG participated in the infringement during the period from 25 June 2003 to 1 April 2004;

2. Annuls Article 2(a) and (b)(2) of Decision C(2006) 4180;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/10

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Low & Bonar and Bonar Technical Fabrics v Commission

(Case T-59/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Attenuating circumstances - Passive role - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Unlimited jurisdiction)

2012/C 6/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Low & Bonar plc (Dundee, Scotland, United Kingdom) and Bonar Technical Fabrics NV (Zele, Belgium) (represented by: L. Garzaniti, lawyer, and M. O’Regan, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets the amount of the fine imposed by Article 2(l) of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) at EUR 9.18 million;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. The European Commission, Low & Bonar plc and Bonar Technical Fabrics NV shall each bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/40

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission

(Case T-190/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Rights of the defence - Presumption of innocence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Equal treatment - Principle that penalties must fit the offence - Principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege - Principle of sound administration - Legal certainty - Misuse of powers - Fines)

2011/C 269/88

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Total SA (Courbevoie, France) and Elf Aquitaine SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery, A. Noël-Baron and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Arbault and O. Beynet, and subsequently by V. Bottka, P.J. Van Nuffel and B. Gencarelli, Agents)

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) and, in the alternative, for amendment of Article 2(i) of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/6

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2012 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-394/06) (1)

(EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ section - Clearance of accounts - Expenditure excluded from financing - Irregularities or negligence attributable to administrations or bodies of Member States - Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 and Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 - Excessive delay in the assessment by the Commission of the communications sent pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 - Reasonable time-limit)

2012/C 319/07

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga, acting as Agent, and M. Moretto, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2006/678/EC of 3 October 2006 concerning the financial treatment to be applied, in the context of clearance of expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, in certain cases of irregularity by operators (OJ 2006 L 278, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Quinn Barlo and Others v European Commission

(Case T-208/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for methacrylates - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Concept of single infringement - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances)

(2012/C 25/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Quinn Barlo Ltd (Cavan, Ireland); Quinn Plastics NV (Geel, Belgium); and Quinn Plastics GmbH (Mayence, Germany) (represented by: W. Blau, F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by V. Bottka and S. Noë, and subsequently by V. Bottka and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) in so far as it relates to the applicants and, in the alternative, application for annulment of Article 2 of that decision in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicants or, in the further alternative, application for a reduction in that fine

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates), first, in so far as it finds that Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV and Quinn Plastics GmbH infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (EEA) by participating in a complex of concerted agreements and practices, not only in respect of polymethyl-methacrylate solid sheet, but also polymethyl-methacrylate moulding compounds and polymethyl-methacrylate sanitary ware and, second, in so far as it holds those companies liable for their participation in the cartel from 1 November 1998 to 23 February 2000;

2. Sets the amount of the fine for which Quinn Barlo, Quinn Plastics NV and Quinn Plastics GmbH are jointly and severally liable under Article 2 of Decision C(2006) 2098 final at EUR 8 250 000;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders Quinn Barlo, Quinn Plastics NV and Quinn Plastics GmbH to bear 60 % of their own costs and to pay 60 % of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

5. Orders the Commission to bear 40 % of its own costs and to pay 40 % of the costs incurred by Quinn Barlo, Quinn Plastics NV and Quinn Plastics GmbH.

(1) OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — UniCredit v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management)

(Joined Cases T-303/06 RENV and T-337/06 RENV) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for Community word marks UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management - Earlier national word marks UNIFONDS and UNIRAK and earlier national figurative mark UNIZINS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Series or family of trade marks - Likelihood of association - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Intervener’s applications for annulment and alteration - Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure)

(2015/C 016/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: UniCredit SpA, formerly UniCredito Italiano SpA (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia, R. Floridia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: J. Zindel, lawyer)

Re:

Actions brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 196/2005-2 and R 211/2005-2) and of 25 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 456/2005-2 and R 502/2005-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH and UniCredito Italiano SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the actions.

2) Dismisses Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH’s applications for annulment and alteration.

3) Orders Credit SpA to pay the costs, save those incurred by Union Investment Privatfonds.

4) Orders Union Investment Privatfonds to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/18

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Heijmans v Commission

(Case T-360/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct)

2012/C 355/35

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Heijmans NV (Rosmalen, Netherlands) (represented: initially by M. Smeets and A. Van den Oord, and subsequently by M. Smeets, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. Bouquet and A. Nijenhuis, Agents, assisted initially by F. Wijckmans, F. Tuytschaever and L. Gyselen, and subsequently by A. Bouquet, A. Nijenhuis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, assisted by F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever, lawyers)

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Heijmans NV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.