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 19-21, 58-59

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 520/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Société de développement et de recherche industrielle and Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(f)) (see paras 33-34, 37

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2009 (Case R 1805/2007-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign PAKI as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders PAKI Logistics 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 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision, in a tendering procedure for 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 (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 26, 29-32)

2. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Obligation to comply with the principle of equal treatment tenderers – Need to ensure equality of opportunity and comply with the principle of transparency – Disparity in information communicated to tenderers, to the benefit of the established contractor – Information neither necessary nor useful for the formulation of tenders – No infringement of the equal treatment principle (see paras 60-63, 65-83)

3. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Power of the institutions in the conduct of the tendering procedure – Conflict of interest between a tenderer and a member of the tender evaluation committee – Concept (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 52(2)) (see paras 100-103)

4. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see para. 123)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 12 December 2008 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in response to Call for Tenders MARE/2008/01 for the provision of computer and related services, including the maintenance and development of the information systems of the Commission’s Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Directorate-General (OJ 2008 S 115) and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer, and an application for damages.

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 those incurred by the European Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Appeals procedure

–

Appeal brought against a decision of the Opposition Division of the Office

–

Examination by Board of Appeal

–

Scope

–

Evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the prescribed time-limit

–

Account taken

–

Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Arts 20(1) and 50(1)) (see paras 31-33, 37-42

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2009 (Case R 1660/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Bernhard Rintisch and Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Producing evidence – Time-limit – Evidence lodged out of time – Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(1)) (see para. 22)

2. European Union law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions – Specific assurances given by the administration (see para. 30)

3. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Determination of priorities by the Commission – Taking into account the Community interest in investigating a case – Discretion of the Commission – Duty to state reasons for a decision to take no further action – Judicial review – Scope and limits (Arts 81 EC, 82 EC, 85(1) EC and 253 EC; Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Art. 7(2)) (see paras 38-40, 59)

4. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Examination of only those elements of fact and law brought to the knowledge of the Commission (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Art. 7(2)) (see para. 41)

5. Competition – Dominant position – Collective dominant position – Concept – Collective entity – Conditions (Art. 82 EC) (see para. 71)

6. Competition – Dominant position – Existence – Large market share – Insufficient evidence (Art. 82 EC) (see para. 79)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C (2009) 4125 of 20 May 2009 rejecting complaint COMP/C‑3/39.391 concerning purported infringements of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by Hewlett‑Packard, Lexmark, Canon and Epson in the market for ink cartridges.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Lexmark International Technology SA to bear its own costs.
Keywords



Keywords

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 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20‑22, 36

)
Keywords



Keywords

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, during the procedure for the award of a public services contract, not to accept a tender — Assessment having regard to information available to the applicant at the time the action was brought (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(2)) (see paras 33-37, 45)

2. EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (see para. 56)

3. Procedure — Measures of organisation of procedure — Request for production of documents — Duties of the person making the request (see para. 83)

4. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Summary statement of pleas (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 89-90)

5. EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Duty to comply with the principle of equal treatment of tenderers — Need to ensure equal opportunities and comply with the principle of transparency — Scope of the transparency obligation (see paras 107-110)

6. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 127-128)
It follows from a combined reading of Rules 50(1) and 20(2) of Regulation No 2868/95 implementing Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark that, in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) communicates the submissions of the opposing party to the applicant for a Community trade mark, who has brought the appeal before the Board of Appeal, and invites him to file his observations.

Under Rule 67(1) of Regulation No 2868/85, if a representative has been appointed or where the applicant first named in a common application is considered to be the common representative pursuant to Rule 75(1), notifications shall be addressed to that appointed or common representative. Therefore, the Office cannot rely on the alleged notification of the opposing party’s pleading to the applicant himself in order to justify the failure to notify the applicant’s representative.

Moreover, it cannot be inferred from Rule 77 of Regulation No 2868/95, under which any notification addressed to a representative has the same effect as if it had been addressed to the represented person, that notification to the represented person is the same as notification to the representative. If that were the case, Rule 67 of that regulation would serve no purpose.

(see paras 24, 29, 31)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 June 2012 — Biofrescos v Commission

(Case T-159/09)

‛Customs union — Frozen shrimps and prawns from Indonesia — Invalid certificates of origin — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Application for remission of import duties — Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92’

1. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import duties — Article 236 of Regulation No 2913/92 — Scope — Limits — Application of substantive customs law — Exclusive competence of the national authorities (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 236) (see paras 10-12)

2. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import duties — Infringement of Article 220(2) of the Community Customs Code — None (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b)) (see paras 13-22)

3. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import duties — Fairness clause established by Article 239 of the Community Customs Code — Scope — Commission’s power of decision — Procedures for exercise — ‘Special situation’ — Meaning (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239) (see paras 26-28)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 37, 38)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 72 final of 16 January 2009 finding that there should be post-clearance recovery of import duties and that remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 23 October 2012 — Vanhecke v Parliament

(Case T-14/09)

‛Privileges and immunities — Member of the Parliament — Waiver of immunity — Action for annulment — No further interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Action for annulment of a decision to waive the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — National criminal proceedings terminated by a discharge — National court decision acquiring force of res judicata after the bringing of the annulment action — No further interest in bringing an action — No need to adjudicate (Art. 230 EC; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 113) (see paras 23-29)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 18 November 2008 waiving the parliamentary immunity of the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the present action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Word mark JACKSON SHOES and commercial name JACSON OF SCANDINAVIA AB (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(4) and 53(1)(c)) (see paras 22-25, 32, 33, 35-37)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Legality of the decision of a Board of Appeal adjudicating in opposition proceedings — Challenged by the adducing of new facts — Not permissible (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 65 and 76(1)) (see para. 27)

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 — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 31)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 August 2009 (Case R 1253/2008-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Jacson of Scandinavia AB and Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 — Germany v Commission

(Case T‑347/09)

‛State aid — Transfer free of charge of certain areas of natural national heritage — Measures for the financial support of large-scale environmental protection projects — Decision declaring aid compatible with the common market — Concept of undertaking — Obligation to state reasons’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Decision classifying a notified measure as State aid and declaring it compatible with the common market — Included (Arts 87 EC, 88 EC and 230 EC) (see para. 16)

2. State aid — Concept — Legal nature — Interpretation on the basis of objective factors — Judicial review — Scope (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 19, 21)

3. Competition — Community rules — Undertaking — Concept — Exercise of an economic activity — Organisations for protecting the environment carrying on secondary activities of an economic nature without a profit motive — Exercise of secondary activities not comparable with the exercise of the prerogatives of the public authorities — Competition with operators pursuing a profit motive — Included (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 25-30, 38, 41, 43‑45, 48-50, 59)

4. State aid — Concept — Granting of an advantage to beneficiaries — Placing at disposal free of charge of areas of natural national heritage permitting commercial exploitation — Included (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 61, 62, 67-70, 72, 73)

5. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision on State aid (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 93-95, 100)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5080 final of 2 July 2009 relating to State aid NN 8/2009 granted by the Federal Republic of Germany and concerning the State aid scheme consisting of the transfer, free of charge, of certain areas of natural national heritage, and of measures for the financial support of large-scale environmental protection projects (OJ 2009 C 230, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2010 – Baid v OHIM (LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES)

(Case T-31/09)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES – 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) – Duty to state reasons – First sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation 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 28, 33-34)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2008 (Case R 963/2008-1), concerning an application to register the word sign LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Baid SARL Community trade mark sought: Word mark LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES for goods and services in Classes 3, 19 and 37 – application No 6071641 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 General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2010 – Baena Grupo v OHIM – Neuman and Galdeano del Sel (Seated figure)

(Case T-513/09)

Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a seated figure – Earlier Community figurative mark – Ground for invalidity – Individual character – Different overall impression – Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002

Community design – Ground for invalidity – No individual character – Comparison between the overall impression produced by the contested design and that produced by the previous design (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 21-26)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2009 (Case R 1323/2008-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel, on the one hand, and José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA, on the other.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community registered design No 000426895‑0002 for the following goods: ‘ornamentation for T-shirts, ornamentation for caps, ornamentation for stickers, ornamentation for printed material including advertising material’ Proprietor of the Community trade mark: José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA Applicants for the declaration of invalidity: Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: Figurative Community mark No 1312651 for goods in Classes 25, 28 and 32 of the Nice Classification Decision of the Cancellation Division of the Designs Department: Application upheld; design declared invalid Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled; pursuant to the power conferred under Article 60(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 on Community designs, appeal determined on its merits and Community design declared invalid





Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 October 2009 (Case R 1323/2008‑3);
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2010 – Fédération internationale des logis v OHIM (Shade of brown)

(Case T-329/09)

Community trade mark – Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a shade of brown – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – 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 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 27-33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2009 (Case R 202/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of a shade of brown as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Fédération internationale des logis Community trade mark sought: Mark representing a brown convex square for goods and services in Classes 3, 18, 24, 43 and 44 – Application No 6468722 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 General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2011 – Longevity Health Products v OHIM – Performing Science (5 HTP)

(Case T-190/09)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark 5 HTP – Absolute ground for refusal – Signs or indications which have become customary – Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Distinctive character acquired by use – Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which have become customary in everyday language or commerce – Commonplace character – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(d)) (see paras 26-27)

2. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Exception – Acquisition of distinctive character through use (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(d) and 52(2)) (see paras 31, 37-40, 52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 April 2009 (Case R 595/2008-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Performing Science LLC and Longevity Health Products Inc.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: Word mark 5 HTP for goods and services in Classes 5, 16 and 35 – Community trade mark No 2846483 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Longevity Health Products, Inc. Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Performing Science LLC Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned partially granted Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;