ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 — Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe v OHIM — Byass (ALFONSO)

(Case T-291/07)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ALFONSO — Earlier Community and national word marks PRINCIPE ALFONSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Obligation to rule on the entirety of the action — Article 62(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 64(1) of Regulation 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 28-30, 53-61)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Decision on the appeal — Obligation of the Board of Appeal — Scope — Appeal not ruled upon in its entirety (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 62(1)) (see para. 62)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1110/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe, SA and González Byass, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: González Byass, SA Community trade mark sought: Word mark ALFONSO for goods in Classes 30, 32 and 33 — Application No 3398278 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national word marks PRÍNCIPE ALFONSO for goods in Class 33 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition in relation to ‘sherries’ (Class 33) upheld and application for registration for those goods refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1110/2006-2);
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 30, 43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 June 2007 (Case R 310/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH and Applus Servicios Tecnológicos, SL.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

3. Orders Applus Servicios Tecnológicoas, SL to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Social policy

–

European Social Fund

–

Financial assistance for vocational training

–

Decision to reduce assistance initially granted

–

Defence rights of beneficiaries

–

Scope (see paras 35-37, 39, 54

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision D(2005) 13066 of 3 June 2005 reducing the amount of the financial assistance granted to the applicant by the European Social Fund (ESF) by Decision No C(88) 0831 of 29 April 1988 for training schemes (file No 880707 P1).

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Cofac – Cooperativa de Formação e Animação Cultural, CRL 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 51, 85

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2007 (Case R 681/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Prestige Cosmetics Srl and The Procter & Gamble Company.

Information relating to the case

>lt>9

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 19 July 2007 (Case R 681/2006-2);

2. Orders OHIM to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by The Procter & Gamble Company in the proceedings before the Court;

3. Orders Prestige Cosmetics SpA to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by The Procter & Gamble Company in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

4. Dismisses the action as to the remainder.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Comparison between the normal value and the export price – Use of the asymmetrical method – Conditions – Existence of differences at the export price level – Differences according to purchasers, regions or periods – Whether existence of the difference sufficient (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 2(11)) (see paras 62, 94, 97)

2. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Comparison between the normal value and the export price – Use of the asymmetrical method – Conditions – Existence of differences at the export price level – Difference in pricing pattern between different periods – Criteria for assessment – Taking into account of internal prices – Not included (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 2 (11)) (see paras 62, 71-74, 94)

3. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Choice between various calculation methods – Use of the asymmetrical method – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 2(11)) (see para. 64)

4. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties – Decision to apply the asymmetrical method for calculation of the dumping margin (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 2(11), 9(4) and 21) (see paras 103-106, 125-127)

5. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Comparison between the normal value and the export price – Use of the asymmetrical method – Conditions – Symmetrical methods not capable of reflecting the full extent of the dumping – Asymmetrical method obtaining a higher dumping margin than that obtained by the symmetrical method – Effect (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 2(11)) (see paras 108-111)

6. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Use of the asymmetrical method – Application of the reduction to zero mechanism – Lawfulness (Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, ‘1994 Antidumping Code’, Art. 2.4.2; Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 2(11)) (see paras 153-154, 156-158)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 of 22 February 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Thailand and Taiwan following an expiry review and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(2) and Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2007 L 59, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dimisses the action;

2. Orders Far Eastern New Century Corp. to bear its own costs, together with those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 58)

2. Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Need for an actual and current interest – Action against decisions not yet adopted at the time when the action was brought – Inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 61-63)

3. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Subject-matter of the dispute – Delimitation – Alteration once proceedings have been started – Prohibition (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1) and 48(2)) (see para. 65)

4. European Parliament – Regulation governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Parliamentary assistance allowance – Liability of the Member of the European Parliament making the request vis-à-vis that institution – Paying agent to manage amounts paid – No effect (see paras 95-96)

5. European Parliament – Regulation governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Parliamentary assistance allowance – Paying agent to manage amounts paid – No documents evidencing use in accordance with rules – Obligation to repay – (see paras 100, 108)

6. European Parliament – Regulation governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Recovery of sums unduly paid – Unconditional obligation (see para. 114)

7. Community law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Documents which were not the subject of comment by the person concerned – Exclusion as evidence – Limits (see paras 125, 127, 130)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 10 May 2007 and, if necessary, the debit note of the Director-General for Finance of the Parliament, taken pursuant to the decision of 10 May 2007, and, where applicable, any decision implementing the aforementioned measures which might arise in the course of the proceedings.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders Mr Hans-Peter Martin to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Representation of the parties – Authority to act ad litem – Required degree of precision (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(5)) (see paras 52-59)

2. Procedure – Reply – Formal requirements – Signature by a lawyer – Reply containing letters drafted by the complainants, without the assistance of a lawyer, and lodged by them directly with the General Court – Letters subsequently countersigned by a lawyer – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third and fourth paras; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(1)) (see paras 63-68)

3. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Taking into account the Community interest in investigating a case – Criteria for assessment – Discretion of the Commission – Limits – Judicial review (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Commission Notice 2004/C 101/05) (see paras 73-75)

4. ECSC – Provisions concerning discrimination on prices and other purchase conditions – Article 4(b) – Temporal scope – Independent application since expiry of the ECSC Treaty – Direct effect (Arts 4(b) CS and 63(1) CS; Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Council Regulations No 17 and No 1/2003) (see paras 84-90)

5. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Decision to take no further action motivated by the possibility of the claimant bringing the matter before the national courts – Legality – Conditions (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 92-94)

6. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Assessment of the Community interest in examining a case – Account to be taken of cessation of the practices complained of – Conditions (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Commission Notice 2004/C 101/05) (see para. 98)

7. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – No obligation to carry out an investigation and rule by decision on the existence of an infringement (Council Regulation No 1/2003; Commission Regulation No 773/2004) (see paras 112-116)

8. Procedure – Costs – Successful party ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicants (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 87(3) and (4)) (see paras 154-158)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision SG-Greffe (2007) D/203626 of 18 June 2007, pursuant to Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18), rejecting the applicants’ complaint concerning infringements of the ECSC Treaty (Case COMP/37.037-SWSMA).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Mr Glen Jones and of Mrs Daphne Jones, as well as those of Fforch-Y-Garon Coal Co. Ltd.

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, E.ON UK plc and International Power plc each to bear their own costs.
3.

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the course of the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — Reasoning to be communicated to the tenderer in time for the latter to bring an action (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(2)) (see paras 57-59, 66, 70, 72, 73)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 1 July 2008 – AWWW v EFILWC

(Case T-211/07)

Public procurement – Community tendering procedure – Rejection of tender – Selection criteria – Award criteria – Obligation to state reasons

1. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision in a procedure for the award of a public service contract not to accept a tender (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 34-45)

2. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Criteria for selecting candidates (see paras 57-62)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of EFILWC of 17 April 2007 rejecting the applicant’s tender in a community public procurement procedure for the provision of services of information and analysis on quality of work and employment, industrial relations and restructuring covering the European level.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)

12 September 2007

Case T-20/07 P

Commission of the European Communities

v

Eleni Chatziioannidou

(Appeals – Civil service – Officials – Pensions – Annulment at first instance of Commission decisions calculating the number of years of pensionable service – Transfer of national pension rights)

Appeal: against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 November 2006 in Case F-100/05 Chatziioannidou v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-1-129 and II-A-1-487, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held: Appeal dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials – Pensions – Pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the Communities – Transfer to the Community scheme

(Staff Regulations, Annex VIII, Art. 11(2); Council Regulations No 1103/97, Art. 3, and No 974/98, Art. 14)

As it applies, by virtue of Article 1, both to legislative and statutory provisions and to acts of administration, Regulation No 1103/97 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro cannot, therefore, be interpreted as merely imposing a principle of the continuity of contracts. Rather, it provides for a requirement that the transition to the euro should be neutral – reflected, in the field of contracts, by a principle of the continuity of contracts – which applies to all legal instruments within its scope. In particular, it follows from Article 3 of Regulation No 1103/97 that the legislative and statutory provisions, which are the particular subject of this regulation, are not modified in any way as a result of the introduction of the euro and that they continue to apply without amendment both to the situations they governed before the introduction of the euro and to those they govern after its introduction. It follows that Regulation No 1103/97 does not require the existence of any relationship, contractual or non-contractual, prior to the entry into force of the euro, for the principle of continuity to apply to the situations governed by the legal instruments referred to by that article.

Consequently, where the legislature or the authorities concerned intend to amend the terms of a legal instrument falling within the scope of Article 3 of Regulation No 1103/97 or to waive or dispense with its enforcement, an express amendment to that legal instrument must be made. It follows that, in accordance with Regulation No 1103/97, following the introduction of the euro, the Commission had to apply to requests for the transfer of pension rights acquired in Member States having adopted that currency, without any change, the mechanism of the average updated conversion rate for the calculation of the number of years of pensionable service to be credited, introduced by the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations which it adopted. On the other hand, if it wished to give a different scope to those provisions, it was for it to amend those rules.

(see paras 34, 41-43)

See: 92/87 and 93/87 Commission v France and United Kingdom [1989] ECR 405, paras 22 to 24
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2008 – Cantieri Navali Termoli v Commission

(Case T-70/07)

State aid – Shipbuilding – Operating aid linked to contracts for ships – Application for extension of ship delivery limit under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 – Causal link between the exceptional event and the delay

1. Actions for annulment – Grounds – Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons – Distinguished from manifest error of assessment (Art. 253 EC) (see para. 37)

2. State aid – Not allowed – Exceptions – Shipbuilding aid (Council Regulation No 1540/98, Art. 3(2)) (see paras 53-58)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/948/EC of 4 July 2006 on State aid which Italy plans to implement for Cantieri Navali Termoli SpA (OJ 2006 L 383, p. 53).

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2008 – ratiopharm v OHIM (BioGeneriX)

(Case T-47/07)

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

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 21, 26-28)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 December 2006 (Case R 1047/2004-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BioGenerix as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: ratiopharm GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark BioGeneriX for goods and services in Classes 5, 35, 40 and 42 – Application No 1701762 Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of registration Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 2 December 2008 – Ebro Puleva v OHIM – Berenguel (BRILLO’S)

(Case T-275/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark BRILLO’S – Earlier national figurative marks featuring the word element ‘brillante’ – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – 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 24, 28)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2007 (Case R 493/2006-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Ebro Puleva, SA and Luis Berenguel, SL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Luis Berenguel, SL Community trade mark sought: Word mark BRILLO’S for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 31 – Application No 2984995 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ebro Puleva, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative marks ‘brillante’ for goods in Class 30 (Mark No 922772) and in Class 29 (Mark No 2413459) Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed; 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 10 December 2008 – Dada v OHIM –Dada (DADA)

(Case T-101/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for a figurative Community trade mark DADA – Earlier national word mark DADA – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Genuine use of the earlier trade mark – Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94

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 46-48)

2. 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. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 29-31)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2007 (Case R 1342/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Dada Srl and Dada SpA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Dada SpA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark DADA for services in Class 42 – Application No 1903111 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Dada Srl Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian word mark DADA, for services in Classes 35, 37, 38 and 42, and the company name DADA, used in business in Italy to identify the following activities: ‘management of commercial affairs, commercial administration, office work, real estate, telecommunications, education, training, legal services, computer programming’ Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld; registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;