ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v Court of Justice

(Case T-272/06)

Public service contracts – Community tendering procedure – Rejection of bid – Selection and award criteria – Obligation to state reasons

European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Duty to comply with the principles of transparency, proportionality and equal treatment (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2)) (see paras 41-44)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of 20 July 2006 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in response to the call for tenders of 5 July 2005 for services to maintain, develop and support computer applications, and to award the contract to the successful tenderer.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Court of Justice to reject the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dinamiki – Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, as communicated to the latter by letter of 20 July 2006;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 2008 – Otto v OHIM – L’Altra Moda (l’Altra Moda)

(Case T-224/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark l’Altra Moda – Earlier national figurative mark Alba Moda – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 73 and Article 74(1) and (2) of Regulation 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32-36, 46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2006 (Case R 793/2005-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Otto GmbH & Co. KG and l’Altra Moda SpA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: L’Altra Moda SpA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark l’Altra Moda for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Otto GmbH & Co. KG Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark Alba Moda for goods in Class 25 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 23 October 2008 – TIM and TTV v OHIM – Past Perfect (PAST PERFECT)

(Case T-133/06)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark PAST PERFECT – Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity – Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 7(2)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(b) to (d) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 31-41, 48, 53-55)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2006 (Case R 150/2005-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between TIM The International Music Company AG and TTV Tonträger-Vertrieb-2000 GmbH, on the one hand, and Past Perfect Ltd, on the other.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: Word mark PAST PERFECT for goods in Class 9 – Application No 1984269 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Past Perfect Ltd Parties seeking cancellation of the Community trade mark: TIM The International Music Company AG and TTV Tonträger-Vertrieb-2000 GmbH Decision of the Cancellation Division: Dismissal of the application 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 26 November 2008 – En Route International v OHIM (FRESHHH)

(Case T-147/06)

Community trade mark – Application for registration of the word mark FRESHHH as a Community trade mark – 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, 28)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2006 (Case R 352/2005-4) concerning registration of the word sign FRESHHH as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: En Route International Ltd Community trade mark sought: Word mark FRESHHH for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32 – Application No 3198165 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2008 – Vitro Corporativo v OHIM – VKR Holding (Vitro)

(Case T-412/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark Vitro – Earlier Community word mark VITRAL – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – 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 23, 31)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 October 2006 (Case R 1364/2005-2) concerning opposition proceedings between VKR Holding A/S and Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Vitro for goods and services in Classes 1, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 30, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 – Application No 2669521 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: VKR Holding A/S Mark or sign cited in opposition: Danish word mark No 19561415 VR, German word mark No 725452, British word mark No 1436897 and Community word mark No 651745 VITRAL, for goods, inter alia, in Class 19, against which the opposition is brought Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld; application for Community mark dismissed for goods in Class 19 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 19 November 2008 – Ercros v OHIM – Degussa (TAI CROS)

(Case T-315/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark TAI CROS – Earlier national word marks CROS, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA CROS and ERCROS – Earlier national figurative marks CROS – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No 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 29, 42-43, 47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2006 (Case R 29/2006-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Ercros, SA and Degussa GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Degussa GmbH Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark TAI CROS for goods in Class 1 – Application No 2768851 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ercros, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word marks CROS, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA CROS and ERCROS and national figurative marks CROS for goods in Class 1 Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition 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 16 September 2009 – Hipp & Co v OHIM – Laboratorios Ordesa (Bebimil)

(Case T-221/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community word mark Bebimil – Earlier Community and national word marks BLEMIL – Earlier national word mark BLEMIL 1 – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Likelihood of confusion

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 39-42, 70-74)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2006 (Case R 571/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ordesa, SL and Hipp & Co. KG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Hipp & Co. KG Community trade mark sought: Community word mark Bebimil for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Laboratorios Ordesa, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark BLEMIL for goods in Classes 5 and 29 and national word marks BLEMIL and BLEMIL 1 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hipp & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 – Álvarez v Commission

(Case T-78/06)

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Plastic industrial bags sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Concept of undertaking – Imputability of the unlawful conduct – Presumption of innocence

1. Community law – Principles – Fundamental rights – Presumption of innocence and defence rights – Procedures in competition matters – Applicability (Art. 6(2) EU; Art. 81(1) EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48) (see paras 23-24)

2. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‑owned subsidiaries – No obligation on the Commission to demonstrate the involvement of the parent company in the infringing conduct – (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 25-30)

3. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for assessment – Presumption of dominant influence by the parent company over its wholly-owned or almost wholly-owned subsidiaries – Commission’s option to attribute to the parent company liability for the infringing conduct of its subsidiary (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 35)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C (2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 – Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
53

In paragraphs 52 and 53 of the judgment in Commission v Ireland and Others, cited in paragraph 25 above (EU:C:2013:812), which is binding on the General Court pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court of Justice held that the fact that the Council’s authorisation decisions were adopted on a proposal from the Commission and the Commission never used the powers available to it, under Article 8(5) of Directive 92/81 or Articles 230 EC and 241 EC, in order to secure the abolition or alteration of those decisions had to be taken into consideration in relation to the obligation to recover the incompatible aid, in the light of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, as the Commission had done, in Alumina Decision I, when it declined to order the recovery of aid granted until 2 February 2002, the date of publication in the Official Journal of the decisions to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC. That ground was decisive to the finding of the Court of Justice, in paragraph 54 of the judgment in Commission v Ireland and Others, cited in paragraph 25 above (EU:C:2013:812), that the grounds set out in paragraphs 39 to 44 of that same judgment could not provide a legal basis for the General Court’s conclusion that Alumina Decision I called into question the validity of the Council’s authorisation decisions and thereby was in breach of the principles of legal certainty and the presumption of legality attaching to the measures of the institutions and the finding, which was based on the same grounds, that, in Case T‑62/06 RENV, the Commission had infringed the principle of sound administration.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 37-38

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 March 2007 (Case R 635/2006-1) concerning the registration of the word mark DREAM IT, DO IT! as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>9

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ashoka 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

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24-25, 30

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2007 (Case R 816/2006-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Substance for Success as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>8

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders BYK-Chemie GmbH 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 46, 73

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 November 2006 (Case R 36/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Sociedad Cooperativa del Campo San Ginés.

Information relating to the case

>lt>12

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Miguel Torres, SA 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

–

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 24-29, 36

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 July 2007 (Case R 333/2005-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark PrimeCast as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>17

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders EOS GmbH Electro Optical Systems 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 – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23-26, 28, 34)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion – Scope (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74) (see paras 42-49)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2007 (Case R 288/2007-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign OPTIMUM as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2009 — El Morabit v Council

(Joined Cases T-37/07 and T-323/07)

‛Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — List of persons, groups and entities — Action for annulment’

1. Community law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Presumption of innocence — Decision to freeze funds, on a preventive basis, against a person suspected of terrorist activities — Compatibility with that principle — Conditions (Council Common Position 2001/931, Art. 1(4); Council Regulation No 2580/2001, Art. 2(3)) (see paras 40-47)

2. Community law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Restrictions on the exercise of fundamental rights justified in the public interest — Fight against threats to international peace and security (Council Common Position 2001/931, Art. 1(4); Council Regulation No 2580/2001) (see paras 52, 59-63)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment, in part, of, first, Council Decision 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC (OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58) and, second, Council Decision 2006/1008/EC of 21 December 2006 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2006 L 379, p. 123), in so far as the name of the applicant appears on the lists of persons, groups and entities to which those provisions apply.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Mr Mohamed El Morabit to bear his own costs and pay those of the Council;
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action brought against a refusal of promotion

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Decision adopting the list of promoted officials – Implied decisions not to promote officials other than the appellant – Not included

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1. In order to prove his interest in obtaining annulment of the implied decision not to promote him in the contested promotion exercise, on the ground that the promotion rate allegedly applicable in the grade concerned was not observed, it is for an official to show that, taking account of his personal situation and, in particular, the total number of promotion points he had accumulated, it is not impossible that he might have reached the promotion threshold if the abovementioned promotion rate had been applied.

(see para. 34)

See: T‑436/04 Sanchez Ferriz v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑277 and II‑A‑2‑1439, paras 33 to 37 and 39; T-415/04 Tebaldi and Others v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000, paras 29 to 32

2. While it is true that the effects of the appointing authority’s decision adopting the list of officials promoted in a promotion exercise do not cease when that exercise is concluded, in so far as an official may find himself in competition, in subsequent promotion exercises, with a number of officials who might already have been promoted in that promotion exercise if the appointing authority had applied a higher promotion rate, the fact remains that the implied decisions not to promote those other officials under that promotion exercise cannot be regarded as acts adversely affecting that official.

(see para. 38)

See: T‑311/04 Buendía Sierra v Commission [2006] ECR II‑4137, para. 349
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 29 September 2009 — Thomson Sales Europe v Commission

(Joined Cases T-225/07 and T-364/07)

‛Customs union — Imports of colour television receivers manufactured in Thailand — Refund of import duties — Manifest negligence — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Action for annulment — Act having adverse effects — Inadmissibility’

1. Own resources of the European Communities — Repayment or remission of import duties (Council Regulations Nos 2913/92, Art. 239, 2584/98, 710/95 and 1531/2002; Commission Regulations Nos 2454/93, Art. 905 and Annex 11, and 2376/94) (see paras 66-68, 72-132, 137-154)

2. Procedure — Measures of inquiry (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 64(3)(d); Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 905) (see paras 163-169)

3. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b); Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Arts 873, 874 and 876) (see paras 177-188)

4. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the Community judicature (Arts 7 EC and 225 EC) (see paras 218-222)

Re:

APPLICATION for, in Case T-225/07, annulment of Commission Decision REM 03/05 of 7 May 2007 stating to the French authorities that the refund of import duties is not justified on the importation of colour television receivers manufactured in Thailand covered by their application of 14 September 2005 and, in Case T-364/07, annulment of the letter of the Commission of 20 July 2007 not confirming acquisition of the entitlement to post-clearance recovery of import duties on those items.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;