ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

Competition — European Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 58‑62)

2. Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Proof — Evidence adduced by the Commission — Assessment (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 105)

3. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Judicial review — Assessment of the duration of the infringement by progressive six-month thresholds — Period longer than that of the actual participation in the infringement — Lawfulness — Conditions (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02) (see paras 127‑130)

4. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Reduction in the amount of the fine for cooperation of the undertaking concerned — Conditions — Discretion of the Commission (Commission Notice 2002/C 45/03) (see paras 138‑145, 148)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2012 — Mustang v OHIM – Decathlon (Wavy line)

(Case T-379/08)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a figurative Community mark representing a wavy line — Earlier national and international figurative trade marks representing a white wavy line on a black background — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — 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 26-28, 56-59)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2008 (Case R 859/2007-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Decathlon SA and Mustang – Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mustang – Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2012 — Mustang v OHIM – Decathlon (Wavy line)

(Case T-379/08)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a figurative Community mark representing a wavy line — Earlier national and international figurative trade marks representing a white wavy line on a black background — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — 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 26-28, 56-59)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2008 (Case R 859/2007-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Decathlon SA and Mustang – Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
The prohibitions laid down by Article 86(1) EC are addressed to Member States, whereas Article 82 EC is addressed to undertakings, prohibiting them from abusing a dominant position. In the case of the combined application of those two provisions, infringement of Article 86(1) EC by a Member State cannot be established unless the State measure is contrary to Article 82 EC. The question therefore arises as to the extent to which an abuse, even if only potential, of the dominant position by an undertaking must be identified, that abuse having a link with the State measure.

By finding simply that an applicant, a former monopolistic undertaking, continues to maintain a dominant position on the wholesale electricity market by virtue of the advantage conferred upon it by privileged access to lignite and that that situation creates an inequality of opportunities on that market between the applicant and other undertakings, the Commission has neither identified nor established to a sufficient legal standard to what abuse, within the meaning of Article 82 EC, the State measure in question has led or could lead the undertaking concerned. The mere fact that the undertaking in question finds itself in an advantageous situation in comparison with its competitors, by reason of a State measure, does not in itself constitute an abuse of a dominant position.

(see paras 86, 93, 103)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (see paras 23, 24)

2. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Dumping margin — Determination of the normal value — Recourse to the constructed value — Account taken of production costs — Calculation of costs on the basis of accounting registers — Costs affected by a distortion of the market — Adjustment — Lawfulness — Criteria (Council Regulations No 384/96, Art. 2(3) and (5), and No 1225/2009, Art. 2(3) and (5)) (see paras 33, 37, 39, 44, 46-48)

3. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Dumping margin — Rules on calculation of the anti-dumping margin contained in the 1994 GATT Anti-dumping Agreement — Transposition into EU law by the basis anti-dumping regulation — Interpretation of Article 2(5) of that regulation in the light of that anti-dumping agreement (Agreement on the implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, ‘1994 Anti-dumping Agreement’ Art. 2.2.1.1; Council Regulations No 384/96, Art. 2(5), and No 1225/2009, Art. 2(5)) (see paras 62-64, 67, 68)

4. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Decision on the determination of the normal value — Statement of reasons — Account taken of information communicated to the undertakings concerned during the administrative procedure (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulations No 384/96, Art. 2, and No 1225/2009, Art. 2) (see para. 98)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 236/2008 of 10 March 2008 concerning terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of the anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ 2008 L 75, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Acron OAO and Dorogobuzh OAO to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by Fertilizers Europe;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 68, 115)

2. 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 69-73)

3. 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 existence 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 74-78, 84, 137)

4. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Agreements which continue to produce their effects after they have formally ceased to be in force — Application of Article 81 EC (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 100)

5. 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. 114)

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 Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA);

2. Annuls Article 4(2) and (3) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final, to the extent that they refer to Article 3 of that decision, in so far as they concern GEMA;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by GEMA, with the exception of the costs occasioned by the intervention;

4. Orders RTL Group SA, CLT-UFA, Music Choice Europe Ltd, ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG, Modern Times Group MTG AB, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd and Verband Privater Rundfunk und Telemedien eV (VPRT) to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by GEMA relating to the intervention;

5. Orders GEMA, the Commission, RTL Group, CLT-UFA and Music Choice Europe each to bear their own costs relating to the interim relief proceedings.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Public contracts of the European Union — Tender procedure — Duty to comply with the principles of equal treatment of tenderers and transparency — Scope (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 89(1)) (see para. 27)

2. Public contracts of the European Union — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (see paras 29-31)

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — Obligation to communicate, following a written request, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the tenderer — No obligation on the awarding authority to provide a detailed analysis of the tender accepted and the tender of the unsuccessful tenderer (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 35-38, 43-45)

4. Public contracts of the European Union — Tender procedure — Award of contracts — Most economically advantageous tender — Award criteria — IT consultancy assistance services — Criteria linked to assessment of the technical and professional capacity of the tenderers to carry out the contract in question — Criteria normally used for the selection of tenderers — Application to the award of the contract — Lawfulness — Conditions (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 93, 94, 96(2)(a), and 97(1); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 137 and 138(2)) (see paras 47, 56-64, 68, 71, 72)

5. Public contracts of the European Union — Tender procedure — Award of contracts — Assessment of tenders on the basis of their content and not on the basis of previous experience with the same awarding authority (Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 138) (see para. 81)

6. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — One of the conditions not satisfied — Action dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 93)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for annulment of the decision of the Commission rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in connection with the call for tenders for a market analysis in view of developing a new approach for the ‘Environment for Young Europeans’ website and, secondly, for compensation.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 – Baldesberger v OHIM (Shape of tweezers)

(Case T-78/08)

(Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark – Shape of tweezers – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))





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 25, 28-30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2007 (Case R 1405/2007-4) regarding an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of tweezers as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Fides B. Baldesberger Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional mark depicting tweezers, for goods in class 8 – Application No 5480108 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2008 – Commission v Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Regional

(Case T-174/08)

Arbitration clause – Contract for financial assistance concluded under a specific programme in the field of telematic applications of common interest – Encata Project – Reimbursement of sums advanced – Late‑payment interest – Default procedure

Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause – Contract granting Community financial assistance for carrying out a project in the area of research, technological development and demonstration – Overall financial contribution to the project less than the amount of the sum advanced by the Commission – Right to partial repayment of the advance, plus late-payment interest – Interest rate for delay claimed by the Commission lower than that calculated under the rules of the applicable national law (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 51-59)

Re:

ACTION under Article 238 EC seeking an order that the defendant reimburse part of the amount advanced by the European Community, together with late-payment interest, under contract SU 1001 (SU) Encata.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Regional, SA to reimburse to the Commission of the European Communities the sum of EUR 63 349.27, together with late-payment interest:

– at the rate of 6.29% per annum from 31 January 2001 to the date of the present judgment;

– at the annual rate applied under Irish law, that is to say, currently Article 26 of the Debtors (Ireland) Act 1840, as amended, up to the rate of 6.29% per annum from the date of the present judgment to full clearance of the debt.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 – JOOP! v OHIM (!)

(Case T-75/08)

Community trade mark – Application for registration of a figurative Community trade mark representing an exclamation mark – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – No distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Exception – Acquisition of distinctive character through use (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3)) (see paras 25-29, 41-47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2007 (Case R 1134/2007‑1) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: JOOP! GmbH Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark representing an exclamation mark for goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25 – Application No 5332184 Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 8 July 2009 – Commission v Atlantic Energy

(Case T-182/08)

Arbitration clause – Contract for financial assistance concluded under a specific programme in the field of non‑nuclear energy – Failure to comply with the contract – Reimbursement of sums advanced – Statutory set-off – Procedure for judgment by default

1. Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 50-69)

2. Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause – Review of the legality of an extra-judicial set-off decision between debts and credit balances adopted by the Commission on the basis of Regulation No 1605/2002 – Not included (Arts 230 EC and 238 EC) (see para. 70)

Re:

ACTION brought by the Commission under Article 238 EC for reimbursement of an advance paid by the European Community, together with interest, under contract BU 183/95 UK/AT.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Atlantic Energy Ltd to reimburse to the Commission of the European Communities the principal sum of EUR 226 010, together with the interest provided for under Article 23.1 of the general conditions of contract BU 183/95 UK/AT in respect of the periods between 1 June 1996 and 28 February 2002 and between 16 July 2002 and 31 May 2008, less the sum of EUR 3 610.53, the final sum being increased by the interest provided for under the abovementioned Article 23.1 of the general conditions as from 1 June 2008 until the debt is discharged in full;

2. Orders Atlantic Energy to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 December 2009 – Iranian Tobacco v OHIM – AD Bulgartabac (TIR 20 FILTER CIGARETTES)

(Case T-245/08)

Community trade mark – Revocation proceedings – Figurative Community trade mark TIR 20 FILTER CIGARETTES – Interest in bringing proceedings not required – Article 55(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Application for revocation – Admissibility – Conditions – Interest in bringing proceedings (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 55(1)(a)) (see paras 18-23)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 April 2008 in Case R 708/2007-1 concerning revocation proceedings between AD Bulgartabac Holding Sofia and Iranian Tobacco Co.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which revocation was applied for: Figurative mark TIR 20 FILTER CIGARETTES for goods in Class 34 – Community trade mark No 400804 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Iranian Tobacco Co. Applicant for revocation: AD Bulgartabac Holding Sofia Decision of the Cancellation Division: Cancellation of the relevant Community trade mark Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2009 – Giordano Enterprises v OHIM – Dias Magalhães & Filhos (GIORDANO)

(Case T-483/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark GIORDANO – Earlier national word mark GIORDANO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Partial refusal of registration – 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 19, 33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2008 (Case R 1864/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between José Dias Magalhães & Filhos lda. and Giordano Enterprises Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Giordano Enterprises Ltd Community trade mark sought: Word mark GIORDANO for goods in Classes 18 and 25 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: José Dias Magalhães & Filhos lda. Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese word mark GIORDANO for goods in Class 25 (No 22534) Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled in so far as it upheld the opposition in relation to certain goods in Class 18; appeal dismissed as to the reminder.





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 – Mundipharma v OHIM – ALK-Abelló (AVANZALENE)

(Case T-477/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings − Application for the Community word mark AVANZALENE – Earlier Community word mark AVANZ – Likelihood of confusion − Similarity of the signs − 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 22-23, 43-45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 1694/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between ALK-Abelló A/S and Mundipharma AG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Mundipharma AG Community trade mark sought: Word mark AVANZALENE for goods in Class 5 – application No 4632501 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ALK-Abelló A/S Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark AVANZ for goods in Class 5 (registration No 3331444) Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mundipharma AG to pay the costs, except those incurred by ALK‑Abelló A/S;