ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Placing of plant protection products on the market – Directive 91/414 – Procedure for inclusion of the active substances of those products in Annex I to the directive – Discretion of the Commission – Judicial review – Scope (Council Directive 91/414, Annex I) (see paras 69-71)

2. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Placing of plant protection products on the market – Directive 91/414 – Procedure for inclusion of the active substances of those products in Annex I to the directive – Residual scientific uncertainty as to the existence or scope of risks to human health – Application of the precautionary principle – Scope – Limits (Art. 174(2) EC; Council Directive 91/414, Art. 5(1)(b), and Annex I) (see paras 74-76)

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Scientific assessment of risks – Requirement for a high level of health protection – Scope (Art. 152(1), first para., EC) (see paras 77-78)

4. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Placing of plant protection products on the market – Directive 91/414 – Commission decision not to enter an active substance in Annex I to the directive – Lack of sufficient information to conclude that no risks present – Breach of principle of proportionality – None (Council Directive 91/414, Art. 5(1), and Annex I) (see paras 126-128, 132, 137)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2012 — Colas v OHIM – García-Teresa Gárate and Bouffard Vicente (BASE-SEAL)

(Case T-172/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark BASE-SEAL — Earlier national figurative marks representing a diamond shape — Earlier national and international figurative marks COLAS — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39-42, 59-63)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2010 (Case R 450/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Colas and, on the other hand, Ms Rosario García-Teresa Gárate and Ms Carmen Bouffard Vicente.

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 4 February 2010 (Case R 450/2009-4) in respect of goods other than the chemicals used in science, photography, agriculture, horticulture and forestry; manures; and chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs referred to in that decision;

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2012 — Colas v OHIM – García-Teresa Gárate and Bouffard Vicente (BASE-SEAL)

(Case T-172/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark BASE-SEAL — Earlier national figurative marks representing a diamond shape — Earlier national and international figurative marks COLAS — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39-42, 59-63)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2010 (Case R 450/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Colas and, on the other hand, Ms Rosario García-Teresa Gárate and Ms Carmen Bouffard Vicente.

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 4 February 2010 (Case R 450/2009-4) in respect of goods other than the chemicals used in science, photography, agriculture, horticulture and forestry; manures; and chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs referred to in that decision;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — Omya v OHIM – Alpha Calcit (CALCIMATT)

(Case T-547/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CALCIMATT — Prior Community word mark CALCILAN — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Refusal of registration’

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2010 (Case R 1370/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH and Omya AG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Omya AG to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — Omya v OHIM – Alpha Calcit (CALCIMATT)

(Case T-547/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CALCIMATT — Prior Community word mark CALCILAN — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Refusal of registration’

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2010 (Case R 1370/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH and Omya AG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
There is no likelihood of confusion, on the part of the general public of the European Union, between the word mark HELLIM, in respect of which registration as a Community trade mark was sought for ‘Milk and milk products’ in Class 29 of the Nice Agreement, and the word mark HALLOUMI, previously registered as a Community collective mark for ‘Cheese’ in the same class.

In the light of the fact that there are no phonetic or visual similarities between the signs at issue, notwithstanding the identity or similarity of the goods concerned, there cannot be any likelihood of confusion on the part of the target public since the existence of a conceptual similarity between the signs at issue is not, in the case of an earlier descriptive mark, sufficient to give rise to a presumption of such a likelihood of confusion.

(see paras 22, 54)
Keywords



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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 24, 50-56

)
In that regard, where the applicable national law recognises the possibility that the legal personality of a company may continue to exist after termination of the liquidation process where a third party seeks to recover a debt from the company originating during the period of its activity, an action for payment of that debt is admissible despite the removal of the company from the commercial and companies register.

An action brought under an arbitration clause, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, is inadmissible if, when the action is brought, the defendant company had neither legal capacity nor standing to be a party to legal proceedings. The applicable law in that connection is that governing the incorporation of the company in question.

The insertion into a contract of an arbitration clause allowing the Union to submit a dispute between itself and a third party to the EU judicature is not contrary to the requirement in Article 272 TFEU that such a clause be contained in the contract concluded by the Union or on its behalf. A provision in favour of a third party may be regarded as a provision made on behalf of the Union. On the other hand, that requirement in Article 272 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the jurisdiction of the General Court over disputes concerning a contract being founded against the wishes of the Union. An arbitration clause stipulated solely in favour of the Union cannot be enforced against its will.

Moreover, since an arbitration clause is of a contractual nature, there is nothing to prevent the existence of such a clause being examined in the light of the general principles of contract law deriving from the legal orders of the Member States. Indeed, even if one of those principles states that a contract is binding only on the parties, that principle does not preclude those two parties conferring a right on a third party by means of a stipulation for the benefit of a third party. In that regard, it is apparent from the general principles of contract law that the existence of a provision in favour of a third party may result from an express agreement between the stipulator and the promissor seeking to confer a right on a third party. The existence of such a provision in favour of a third party may also arise from the purpose of the contract or the circumstances of the case.

Whilst the stipulator and the promissor of a provision in favour of a third party may, in certain circumstances, delete or amend the clause conferring the right in question, under the general principles of contract law that is no longer possible after the third party has notified the promissor or stipulator that he wishes to exercise his right.

(see paras 134-135, 138, 144)
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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 39, 40

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 988/2009‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Luigi Panzeri and Royal Trophy Srl.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 May 2010 (Case R 988/2009‑1);

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2012 — Seven Towns v OHIM (Representation of seven squares of different colours)

(Case T-293/10)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community mark representing seven squares of different colours — Sign of which a Community trade mark may consist — Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Registration procedure — Publication of the application — Measure not guaranteeing registration of the trade mark (Council Regulation 207/2009, Arts 37 and 39(2)) (see paras 33, 35, 36)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Decision on the appeal — Exercise by the Board of Appeal of the powers of the examiner — Obligation to respect the rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 37(3), 64(1), and 75) (see paras 42, 43)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Signs capable of constituting a mark — Colours or combinations of colours — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 4) (see para. 50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2010 (Case R 1475/2009-1), concerning an application for registration of a sign representing seven squares of different colours as a Community mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

—

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

—

Absolute grounds for refusal

—

Signs constituted solely by the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result

—

Definition (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see paras 26-28

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1235/2008‑1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S, of the one part, and Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd, of the other.

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 20 May 2010 (Case R 1235/2008‑1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd;

3. Orders Pi‑Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S to bear their own respective costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2012 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-89/10)

‛Structural funds — Financial assistance — M43 Motorway between Szeged and Makó — VAT — Non-eligible expenditure’

1. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — EU financing — Eligible expenses — Non-deductible VAT — Concept to be determined in accordance with the rules specific to each fund and not in accordance with national law — Concept referring to the facility of the beneficiary to deduct that tax (Council Regulations No 1083/2006, Art. 56(4) and No 1084/2006, Art. 3(e)) (see paras 36-40, 50-55)

2. European Union law — Texts in several languages — Uniform interpretation — Divergence between language versions — General scheme and purpose of the rules in question as a reference point (see paras 43-44)

Re:

ACTION for annulment brought against the Commission Decision of 14 December 2009 relating to the major project ‘M43 Motorway between Szeged and Makó’, forming part of the ‘Transport’ operational programme for European Union structural support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund under the ‘Convergence’ objective (CCI 2008HU161PR016).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2012 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-89/10)

‛Structural funds — Financial assistance — M43 Motorway between Szeged and Makó — VAT — Non-eligible expenditure’

1. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — EU financing — Eligible expenses — Non-deductible VAT — Concept to be determined in accordance with the rules specific to each fund and not in accordance with national law — Concept referring to the facility of the beneficiary to deduct that tax (Council Regulations No 1083/2006, Art. 56(4) and No 1084/2006, Art. 3(e)) (see paras 36-40, 50-55)

2. European Union law — Texts in several languages — Uniform interpretation — Divergence between language versions — General scheme and purpose of the rules in question as a reference point (see paras 43-44)

Re:

ACTION for annulment brought against the Commission Decision of 14 December 2009 relating to the major project ‘M43 Motorway between Szeged and Makó’, forming part of the ‘Transport’ operational programme for European Union structural support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund under the ‘Convergence’ objective (CCI 2008HU161PR016).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2012 — IDT Biologika v Commission

(Case T-503/10)

‛Public supply contracts — Call for tenders — Supply in Serbia of rabies vaccines — Rejection of a submitted tender — Award of the contract to another tenderer’

1. EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (Council Regulation No 1605/2002; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002) (see paras 19, 20)

2. EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Duty to comply with the principles of equal treatment of tenderers and transparency (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 89(1) and 168) (see para. 51)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision dated 10 August 2010 of the European Union delegation in the Republic of Serbia (OJ 2010/S 192-293332) awarding the contract in the call for tenders EuropeAid/129809/C/SUP/RS for the supply of rabies vaccines for vaccination campaigns in Serbia to the consortium directed by the company Bioveta a.s. and rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, under the procedure for the award of a public service contract, to reject a tender — Assessment in the light of information available to the applicant at the time the action brought — Infringement — None (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 25-28, 37)

2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — One of the conditions not satisfied — Action dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 70-73)

Subject of the case

Re:

First, application for annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 29 October 2009 in that it rejects the tender submitted by the applicant for Lot 2, entitled ‘Electronic publishing based on Microsoft SharePoint Server’, and, inter alia, awards the contracts to the successful tenderers, and in that it awards two contracts from Lot 3, entitled ‘Electronic publishing based on open-source platforms’, to an undertaking belonging to two different consortia, within the framework of the call for tenders AO 10224 for the provision of electronic publications (OJ 2009/S 109-156511), and, secondly, a claim for damages pursuant to Articles 268 TFEU and 340 TFEU.

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 the costs incurred by the European Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission — Extent of the burden of proof — Degree of precision required of the evidence used by the Commission — Body of evidence — Evidential obligations of the undertakings challenging the reality or the duration of the infringement (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 45-55, 88-92)

2. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Discretion of the Commission — Limits — Respect for the principle of equal treatment — Judicial review — Review of unlimited jurisdiction — Assessment by the General Court of the proportionality of the fine (Arts 261 TFEU and 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02, points 21 and 22) (see paras 129-141, 152, 157, 177)

3. Competition — Administrative procedure — Obligations of the Commission — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Annulment of a decision finding an infringement by reason of excessive duration of the procedure — Condition — Harm to the rights of defence of the undertakings concerned — Excessive duration of the procedure not relevant to the content of the Commission’s decision (Art. 81 EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1); Commission Regulation No 1/2003) (see paras 173, 174)

4. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — No need to take account of the turnovers of the undertakings concerned and to ensure that fines are proportional to those turnovers (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02) (see para. 196)

5. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Mitigating circumstances — Conduct deviating from that agreed within the cartel — Assessment (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02, point 29) (see paras 200-202)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38589 — Heat Stabilisers), or, in the alternative, for annulment of the fine imposed on the applicant or a reduction in its amount.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Faci SpA to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 November 2014 —

Natura Selection v OHIM — Afoi Anezoulaki (natur)

(Case T‑549/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark natur — Earlier application for the figurative mark natura — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — No power to issue directions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 22)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 28)

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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 33)

5. 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 mark natur and figurative marks natura, natura selection and natura casa (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 34-38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2010 (Case R 217/2010‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between Natura Selection, SL and Afoi Anezoulaki AE.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 September 2010 (Case R 217/2010‑2);