ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 40-41, 51-53, 57-62

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2008 (Case R 1049/2007-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG and Bösinger Fleischwaren GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

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 11 December 2008 (Case R 1049/2007-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

6 March 2012

European Commission

v

Amerigo Liotti

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — 2006 appraisal procedure — General implementing provisions — Application of the appraisal standards consistently and through consultation’

Appeal:

against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 February 2009 in Case F‑38/08 Liotti v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑I‑25 and II‑A‑1‑103 and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. The European Commission will bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Mr Amerigo Liotti in the present proceedings.

Summary

Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — General implementing provisions establishing common appraisal rules for each directorate-general — Appraisals conducted without regard to the appraisal rules — Unlawfulness

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

Even where they are supported by evidence and reasons are given, appraisals of officials’ ability, efficiency and conduct in the service which are conducted without regard, or without sufficient regard, to the appraisal rules necessarily depart from the assessment criteria common to all officials within a particular directorate-general, as laid down in those rules, and consist of the assessments, sometimes incomplete or subjective, of the individual reporting or countersigning officer. A career development report drawn up without regard to the appraisal rules cannot therefore be identical to that which would have been drawn up if the rules had been applied.

Furthermore, the evidential difficulties particular to the appraisal of officials preclude an official who contests a career development report from being required to demonstrate that, if the appraisal rules had been applied by the reporting and countersigning officers, the report might have been different.

(see paras 48-49)
A Commission decision granting a Member State a temporary exemption from the obligations laid down by Directive 2008/50 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe does not constitute a measure of individual scope, it cannot be categorised as an administrative act for the purposes of Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Accordingly, that decision cannot form the subject of a request for internal review under Article 10(1) of that regulation.

In order to determine the scope of a measure, account should first be taken of its purpose and its content. Accordingly, a decision which is addressed to a Member State is regarded as being of general application if it applies to objectively determined situations and entails legal effects for categories of persons envisaged generally and in the abstract.

Moreover, where an instrument lays down limitations, or allows derogations, which are temporary in nature or territorial in scope, they form an integral part of the body of provisions within which they are found and, in the absence of any misuse of powers, they are of the same general nature as those provisions.

Lastly, derogations from the body of general rules which take the form of confirmatory decisions adopted by the Commission under a provision of a directive partake of the general nature of that directive, given that they are addressed in abstract terms to undefined classes of persons and applied to objectively defined situations.

(see paras 26-28, 34, 41)
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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 51)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 26)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks Ganeder and Ganter (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 34, 54-57)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 35)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1289/2008-1), relating to an opposition procedure between shoe fashion group Lorenz AG and Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making Co. Ltd.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

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 16 July 2009 (Case R 1289/2008-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Lorenz Shoe Group AG;

3. Orders Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making Co. Ltd to bear its own costs .
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Poland v Commission

(Case T‑486/09)

‛EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Rural development measures — Less favoured areas and agri environment — Flat-rate financial correction — Expenditure incurred by Poland — Control reports — Effectiveness of controls — System of penalties — Obligation to state reasons’

1. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof — Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (Commission Regulations No 796/2004 and No 817/2004) (see paras 23-26)

2. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Procedure — Conciliation procedure — Opinion of the conciliation body — No binding effect (Commission Decision 94/442, Art. 1(2)(a)) (see para. 45)

3. EU law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Differences between the various language versions — Account to be taken of the overall scheme and purpose of the legislation in question (Commission Regulation No 817/2004, Art. 68) (see paras 68, 69)

4. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Flat-rate correction issued by the Commission in accordance with internal guidelines — Controls not giving the expected level of regularity of claims — Whether permissible to apply a flat rate of 5% where weaknesses found in key controls established by a Member State in the sector concerned (Commission Regulation No 796/2004) (see paras 152-156)

5. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 161, 162)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2009/721/EC of 24 September 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2009 L 257, p. 28).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2015 — Ayadi v Commission

(Case T‑527/09 RENV)

‛Referral back after setting aside — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Freezing of funds and economic resources of a person included on a list drawn up by a United Nations body — Inclusion of the name of that person in the list contained in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Action for annulment — Fundamental rights — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Right to respect for property’

1. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Inadequate statement of reasons — Plea which may be invoked at any stage of the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2)) (see para. 44)

2. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Amplification of a plea made earlier — Admissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2)) (see para. 45)

3. European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Regulation imposing restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban — Ambit of the review (Council Regulation No 881/2002, Annex I; Commission Regulation No 954/2009) (see paras 62-71)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009 of 13 October 2009 amending for the 114th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2009 L 269, p. 20), in so far as that act concerns the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009 of 13 October 2009 amending for the 114th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, in so far as that measure concerns Mr Chafiq Ayadi;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay both the costs incurred by Mr Ayadi and the sums advanced by the General Court by way of legal aid;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 September 2010 – Micro Shaping v OHIM (packaging)

(Case T-64/09)

Community trade mark – Application for Community figurative mark packaging – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 30-31, 44-45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2008 (Case R 1063/2008-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign packaging as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Micro Shaping Ltd Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark packaging for goods and services in Classes 16, 17 and 42 – Application No 6354311 Decision of the Opposition Division: Registration partially refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 2 June 2010 – Procaps v OHIM – Biofarma (PROCAPS)

(Case T-35/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for the Community word mark PROCAPS – Earlier national and international word marks PROCAPTAN – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Similarity of the goods and services – 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 32, 62, 66-67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 November 2008 (Case R 867/2007‑4) concerning opposition proceedings between Biofarma SAS and Procaps, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Procaps, SA Community trade mark sought: Word mark PROCAPS for goods and services in Classes 5, 35, 39, 40, 44 – Application No 3519394 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Biofarma SAS Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and international word mark PROCAPTAN for goods in Class 5 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed in part





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Procaps, SA to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2010 – Wilo v OHIM (Faceted casing of an electric motor and representation of green facets)

(Joined Cases T-253/09 and T-254/09)

Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark – Faceted casing of an electric motor – Application for a Community trade mark representing green facets – Absolute grounds 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 29, 42)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 March 2009 (Cases R 1184/2008-1 and R 1196/2008-1) concerning applications for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of faceted casing of an electric motor and a figurative sign representing green facets.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Wilo SE Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional mark representing the casing of a motor of a heating pump for goods in Classes 7 and 11 and a figurative mark representing green facets for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11 – Application Nos 5805692 and 5620001 Decision of the examiner: Registrations refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeals dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 January 2011 – Park v OHIM – Bae (PINE TREE)

(Case T-28/09)

Community trade mark – Revocation proceedings – Figurative Community mark PINE TREE – Genuine use of the mark – Articles 50(1)(a) and 55(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 51(1)(a) and 56(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 82-85)

2. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Determination of a minimal quantitative use threshold – Not included (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see para. 86)

3. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 50(1)(a)) (see paras 89-96)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2008 (Case R 1882/2007-4) concerning revocation proceedings between Mr Mo-Hwa Park and Mr Chong-Yun Bae.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: Figurative mark PINE TREE for goods in Class 28 – Community trade mark No 318857) Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Mr Chong-Yun Bae Party requesting cancellation of the Community trade mark: Mr Mo-Hwa Park Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of revocation of the Community trade mark concerned Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the application for a declaration of revocation of the trade mark concerned





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 December 2010 – Bianchin v OHIM – Grotto (GASOLINE)

(Case T-380/09)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark GASOLINE – Earlier Community figurative mark GAS – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Absence – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 17)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Possibility of a visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 34)

3. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 28, 30, 42, 52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 July 2009 (Case R 1455/2008-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Grotto SpA and Luciano Bianchin.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: Word mark GASOLINE for goods in Class 9 – Community mark No 2901064 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Luciano Bianchin Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Grotto SpA Trade mark of the party seeking cancellation: Italian figurative mark composed of the word element GAS (Keep it simple.) (Registration Nos 959343 and 876729) for, inter alia, goods in Class 9, and figurative Community trade mark composed of the word element GAS (No 2867463) for goods in Class 9 Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application granted; registration of the Community trade mark declared invalid Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 – Dover v Parliament

(Case T-149/09)

Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Review of the use of allowances – Parliamentary assistance allowance – Justification of expenditure – Recovery of undue payments

1. Procedure – Measures of organisation of procedure – Request that internal documents of an institution be removed from the file – Documents irregularly obtained – Retention on file – Criteria (see paras 61-63)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament concerning the recovery of sums paid to an MEP by way of parliamentary assistance allowance – Duty to state specific, adequate reasons for each amount regarded as unjustified (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 98-99, 109, 111)

3. European Parliament – Regulation governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Parliamentary assistance allowance – Lack of documents to evidence use in accordance with rules – Obligation to repay – Conditions for granting the allowance met at the time of the application – No effect (see paras 122-124)

4. European Parliament – Regulation governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Parliamentary assistance allowance – Provider of parliamentary assistance services not having honoured his tax obligations arising from the fees relating thereto – Liability of the MEP making the application vis-à-vis the Parliament – None (see paras 150-155)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Decision D (2009) 4639 of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2009 concerning the recovery of sums paid to the applicant by way of parliamentary allowances.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Decision D (2009) 4639 of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2009 as regards the recovery of the sum of GBP 193 001;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;