ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Act repealing and replacing the contested measure during the proceedings — No application to amend the pleas for annulment — Continuing interest of the applicant in obtaining the annulment of the contested measure (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 560/2005, as amended by Regulation No 25/2011, Annex IA; Council Decision 2010/656, as modified by Decision 2011/18, Annex II) (see paras 31-34)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Restrictive measures against the Ivory Coast — Freezing of funds of certain persons and entities in light of the situation in the Ivory Coast — No obligation first to hear the person subject to the measure — Obligation to identify in the statement of reasons the specific and concrete elements justifying the said measure — Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned, enabling him to understand the scope of the measure taken against him — Admissibility of a summary statement of reasons (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 560/2005, as amended by Regulation No 25/2011, Annex IA; Council Decision 2010/656, as amended by Decision 2011/18, Annex II) (see paras 40-46)

3. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Obligation to state reasons — Plea distinct from that of the lawfulness of the contested decision (Art. 263, second para., TFEU) (see para. 52)

4. European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures against the Ivory Coast — Freezing of funds of certain persons and entities in light of the situation in the Ivory Coast — Judicial review — Scope — Restricted review for general rules — Review extending to assessment of facts and verification of evidence for measures applying to specific bodies (Art. 29 TEU; Art. 215(2) TFEU; Council Regulation No 560/2005, as amended by Regulation No 25/2011, Art. 11a(1) and (2); Council Decision 2010/656, as amended by Decision 2011/18, Art. 7(1) and (2)) (see paras 56-58)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and, second, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Marcel Gossio to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and the European Commission to bear their own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Producing evidence — Time limit — Evidence lodged out of time — Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(1)) (see paras 31, 35)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 48)

3. 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 — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 48)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2011 (Case R 605/2010-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing a green octagonal frame.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 March 2011 (Case R 605/2010-4);

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Iran Transfo v Council

(Case T-392/11)

‛Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment’

1. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned, enabling him to understand the scope of the measure taken in respect of him — Admissibility of a summary statement of reasons (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, Art. 24(3)) (see paras 23, 25-27)

2. European Union — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Judicial review of legality — Scope — Decision based on information supplied by Member States and not communicable to the EU judicature — Not permissible (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP and 2011/299/CFSP) (see paras 34, 40, 41, 50)

3. Actions for annulment — Contested act — Assessment of legality in the light of the information available at the time of adoption of the measure (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 48)

4. European Union — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Assessment of the legality by reference to the information available at the time of adoption of the decision (Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP and 2011/299/CFSP) (see paras 48-53)

5. Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Annulment of a fund-freezing decision not affecting a regulation applying an identical measure — Risk of legal certainty being seriously affected — Maintenance of the effects of the contested decision during a maximum period as from delivery (Art. 264, second para., TFEU) (see paras 54-56)

6. Judicial proceedings — Measures of organisation of procedure — Request for production of documents — Discretion of the General Court (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 64) (see para. 59)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), in so far as that decision concerns the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it concerns Iran Transfo;

2. Orders the effects of Decision 2011/299, in so far as it concerns Iran Transfo, to be maintained for a period which may not exceed two months and ten days from the date of delivery of this judgment;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Iran Transfo;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part

Keywords 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 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 23, 26-29 ) Subject of the case Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2011 (Case R 1358/2008-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between Asteris Industrial and Commercial Company SA and Luna International Ltd. Operative part Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Luna International Ltd to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2013 — Luna v OHIM — Asteris (Al bustan)

(Case T-454/11)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark Al bustan — Earlier national figurative mark ALBUSTAN — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

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 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 23, 26-29)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2011 (Case R 1358/2008-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between Asteris Industrial and Commercial Company SA and Luna International Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 14 January 2011 (Case R 556/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr José Luis Otero González and Apli-Agipa SAS in so far as it dismisses Mr Otero González’s appeal and grants Apli-Agipa registration of the Community word mark AGIPA in respect of the ‘photographs; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; paint brushes; office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks’ in Class 16 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;
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 16-18, 31)

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 — Figurative mark MAGNEXT and word mark MAGNEXT — Word mark MAGNET 4 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 29, 33-35)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 21)

Subject of the case

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 September 2011 (Case R 1695/2010-4) and of 24 April 2012 (Case R 1722/2011-4) concerning two sets of opposition proceedings between Diset SA and Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders that Cases T‑604/11 and T‑292/12 be joined for the purposes of judgment;

2. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 27 September 2011 (Case R 1695/2010-4) in Case T‑604/11;

3. Dismisses the action in Case T‑604/11 as to the remainder;

4. Dismisses the action in Case T‑292/12;

5. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug in Case T‑604/11;

6. Orders Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM in Case T‑292/12.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Dimian v OHIM — Bayer Design Fritz Bayer (Baby Bambolina)

(Case T-581/11)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community trade mark Baby Bambolina — Earlier unregistered national trade mark Bambolina — Relative ground for refusal — No use in trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Conditions — Local scope of sign (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art.8(4)) (see paras 23-25)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Conditions — Use of the sign in trade (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 23, 29, 30)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an earlier trade mark as referred to in Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Figurative mark Baby Bambolina and word mark Bambolina (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(4), and 53(1)(c)) (see para. 73)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 August 2011 (Case R 1822/2010-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Dimian AG and Bayer Design Fritz Bayer GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 — ‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products v OHIM (Representation of a tampon)

(Case T‑492/11)

‛Community trade mark — Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a sanitary tampon — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 12, 13)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional marks consisting in the shape of the product — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 14-16)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark consisting of the two-dimensional representation of a product — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 17)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark representing a sanitary tampon (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20-28)

5. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 July 2011 (Case R 2168/2010‑1) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a sanitary tampon as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 — Coexistence of earlier marks — Recognition of a certain degree of distinctiveness of a national mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(b), and 8(1)(b), and (2)(a)(ii); European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95, Art. 3(1)(b)) (see paras 32-35)
As regards the examination, from the standpoint of Article 107(1) TFEU, of a national measure designed to encourage the production of green electricity by guaranteeing to each producer of green electricity the purchase of the total quantity of that electricity at a fixed price higher than the market price of electricity, while at the same time providing for a transfer of the costs thereby incurred by electricity distributors to electricity consumers by means of an obligatory price supplement lined to the purchase of green electricity, the Commission does not err in taking the view that the advantage granted to energy-intensive businesses, who are entitled, on application, to an exemption from the obligation to purchase green electricity on payment of a compensatory amount, implied the use of State resources, even if that aid mechanism is managed by a centre for the regulation of green electricity, the performance of whose tasks has been the subject-matter of a concession granted to a private limited company held as to 50.4% by shareholders under private control.

That limited company is entrusted by national law with administering the system of aid for the production of electricity from renewable sources. The system laid down by that law may be defined as constituting a State concession, the funds in question being paid exclusively for public interest purposes, defined by the national legislature. Moreover, the compulsory price supplement lined to the purchase of green electricity can be assimilated to a parafiscal levy on electricity, which is set by a public authority, for purposes in the public interest and according to an objective criterion. Thus it is possible to classify the amounts in question as funds originating in a State resource, assimilable to a parafiscal levy.

Furthermore, whilst it is true that the body entrusted with managing the system of aid for production of electricity from renewable sources is presented in the form of a limited company governed by private law, the action of that body, in the context of the concession to carry out the tasks entrusted to the centre for the regulation of green electricity, is not that of an economic entity acting freely on the market for the purpose of making a profit, but an action defined by the national legislature, which circumscribed it so far as the performance of the concession in question is concerned. In that regard, the existence of a strict control of the compliance of that body’s activities with the legislative framework provided for, effected by various State bodies at many levels, corroborates the conclusion that that body does not act freely and on its own behalf, but as an administrator, in the execution of a concession, of aid granted through State funds.

In those circumstances, the Commission is correct to assert that the advantage provided for in favour of energy-intensive businesses constitutes, in this instance, an additional burden for the State, in so far as any reduction in the amount of the tax to which they are subject may be considered to have led to losses in revenue for the State.

(see paras 67, 68, 70, 72, 75, 76, 83)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

State aid — Existing aid and new aid — Concept — Contract, concluded before the accession of the State concerned to the European Communities, granting a preferential electricity tariff — Termination of the contract — Interlocutory order of a national court suspending the effects of the termination of the contract — Classification as new aid — None

(Art. 108(1) and (3) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 1(b) and (c))

Summary

Under Article 108(3) TFEU the Commission must be informed of any plan to grant new aid before it is implemented and that any new aid granted without the Commission’s approval is unlawful.

Under Article 1(c) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU, new aid means all aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid and existing aid means authorised aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid which have been authorised by the Commission or by the Council of the European Union.

Measures taken after the entry into force of the Treaty to grant or alter aid, whether or not the alterations relate to existing aid, must be regarded as new aid.

In that regard, the extension of an existing aid creates a new aid which is distinct from the aid which was extended and the amendment of the duration of an existing aid should also be regarded as a new aid.

However, for Article 108(1) and (3) TFEU to apply, the emergence of new aid or the alteration of existing aid must be determined by reference to the provisions providing for it, its detailed rules and its limits. It is therefore only where the alteration affects the actual substance of the original scheme that the latter is transformed into a new aid scheme.

In the context of an annulment action brought against a Commission decision declaring as new aid the suspension, by a national court, in interlocutory proceedings, provisionally and ex nunc , of the effects of the termination of a contract, concluded between the public electricity company and a company before the accession of the Member State to the European Communities, granting a preferential electricity tariff to that company, the intervention of the court hearing the interlocutory action, provisionally maintaining that tariff for a certain period, has neither the purpose nor the effect of altering the substance of the existing aid. It does not alter the contractual or legislative provisions relating to the preferential tariff, or alter the conditions or the limits of that tariff, but is merely an assessment as to whether the termination of the contract was lawful.

Hence, the court hearing the interlocutory action, rather than granting new aid, merely gave an interim ruling in the dispute before it in the matter of whether the contract under which the preferential tariff was granted had ceased to have effect. It necessarily follows that suspension of the termination of the contract after the interlocutory order is not regarded as being a new privilege separate from the existing aid.

(see paras 48-50, 53-56)
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 — Assessment having regard to information available to the applicant at the time the action brought — Correction of an error of reasoning during the proceedings before the Court — Not permissible (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 39-43, 56, 59, 63, 65)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 May 2012 —

Universal Display v OHIM (UniversalPHOLED)



(Case T‑435/11)

Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Application for Community word mark UniversalPHOLED — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — 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 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20-26, 30, 31, 39, 40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 May 2011 (Case R 215/2011‑2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign UniversalPHOLED as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;