ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Time-limit and form of appeal – To be brought in writing and within a period of two months – Payment of the amount corresponding to the fee for appeal – Act insufficient of itself

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 59)

2. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Actions before the Community judicature – Procedural role of the Office

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 134(3))

3. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Actions before the Community judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the legality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(3))

Summary

1. Under Article 59 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the notice of an appeal against the decision of the bodies of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) must be filed in writing at OHIM within two months of the date of notification of the decision under appeal.

While Article 59 of Regulation No 40/94 provides that the appeal is deemed to be filed only when the fee for appeal has been paid, the mere payment of the corresponding amount cannot be considered to be equivalent to the notice required under that provision.

(see paras 22-23)

2. Although Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court provides that an intervener may, in his response, seek an order annulling or altering the decision of the Board of Appeal on a point not raised in the application, it follows from that provision – by dint of a contrario reasoning – that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is not entitled, for its part, to seek such a form of order.

(see para. 27)

3. The General Court reviews the legality of the decisions of the bodies of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). If it holds that such a decision, called into question in an action brought before it, is vitiated by illegality, it must annul it. It may not dismiss the action while substituting its own reasoning for that of the competent OHIM body which is the author of the contested act.

(see para. 29)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Contract subject to national law – Interpretation of the contract having regard to national law – Conditions – Insufficiency of the contractual clauses to resolve the dispute – Doubt as to the content or meaning of the contract (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 52-53)

2. Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Contract granting Community financial assistance for a mutual education project between various European municipalities – Final report of the contracting parties concerning that project having been tacitly approved by the Commission – Demand for repayment of an advance, with interest – Rejection (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 57, 77-94)

3. Procedure – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions – New plea – Concept – Applicability to disputes referred to the General Court under an arbitration clause (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2)) (see paras 67-69)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION based on an arbitration clause in accordance with Article 238 EC seeking an order that the Commune de Valbonne reimburse advance payments made by the European Commission, together with late-payment interest, in connection with Contract Valaspi MM 1027 of 29 December 1997.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission 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)(c)) (see paras 33, 42-43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 April 2008 (Cases R 1573/2006-4 and R 1571/2006-4) concerning two applications for registration of the word sign WIENER WERKSTÄTTE as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders that Cases T-230/08 and T-231/08 be joined for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;

3. Orders Mr Paul Asenbaum 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

–

Three-dimensional mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 36, 40

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 June 2008 (Case R 943/2007-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the representation of a small bell with a red ribbon.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability

–

Conditions

–

Causal link

–

Damage suffered following allegedly unlawful adoption by the Commission of legislative provisions implementing Directive 98/8

–

No direct causal link between the damage and those provisions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 24-25, 30-38, 40

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for damages seeking compensation for the loss suffered following the allegedly unlawful adoption by the Commission of various regulations pursuant to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1) or, in the alternative, following the alleged failure by the Commission to adopt the measures necessary to ensure the right to protection of information supplied under that directive.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Jürgen Gutknecht to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.
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 18-19, 27-28

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2008 (Case R 562/2007‑4) concerning the registration of the word sign PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Vion NV to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Disclosure by the designer or his successor in title — Proof of the disclosure (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 5(1)(b), and 7(1)) (see paras 20-23)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Review of legality — Criteria — Account taken only of the factual and legal elements existing at the date on which the contested measure was adopted (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 70)

2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement borne by the Commission — Extent of the burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 83, 130)

3. Union law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Presumption of innocence — Procedures in competition matters — Decision finding an infringement but not imposing a fine — Applicability (Art. 81(1) EC; Art. 6(2) EU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48(1)) (see paras 84-88)

4. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Means of proof — Reliance on a body of evidence — Degree of evidential value necessary as regards items of evidence viewed in isolation — Evidence based solely on the conduct of undertakings — Evidential obligations of undertakings disputing the reality of the infringement — Obligations of the Commission challenging the plausibility of the explanations proposed by the undertakings (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 89-93, 99, 153)

5. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Agreements which continue to produce their effects after they have formally ceased to be in force — Application of Article 81 EC (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 115)

6. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Concerted practice — Parallel conduct — Presumption that a concertation exists — Limits — Refusal by national copyright management societies to allow a user established in another Member State direct access to their repertoire — Adverse effect on competition (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 129)

7. Actions for annulment — Judicial review — Limits on jurisdiction (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 175)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Lietuvos autorių teisių gynimo asociacijos agentūra (LATGA-A);

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

8 July 2010

Case T-12/08 P-RENV-RX

M

v

European Medicines Agency (EMA)

(Appeal — Civil service — Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given)

Procedure: following the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-197/09 RX-II Review M v EMEA [2009] ECR I-12033, by which the Court, having found that the judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2009 in Case T-12/08 P M v EMEA [2008] ECR-SC I-B-I-31 and II-B-1-159, the subject-matter of which was an appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) in Case F-23/07 M v EMEA [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-311 and II-A-1-1755, affects the unity and consistency of Community law, set aside certain points in the operative part of the judgment reviewed and referred the case back to the General Court.

Held: The case is referred back to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal for it to rule on the claim for compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by Mr M. Costs are referred.

Summary

Appeals — Appeal held to be well founded — Judgment to be given on the substance by the appeal court — Condition — Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given — Meaning

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1))

The appeal court may, in certain circumstances, rule on the substance of an action, even though the proceedings at first instance were confined to a plea of inadmissibility which that court upheld.

That may be so where, first, the setting aside of the judgment or order under appeal necessarily brings about a definitive resolution of the substance of the action in question or, second, the examination of the substance of the application for annulment is based on arguments exchanged by the parties in the appeal proceedings following reasoning adopted by the court at first instance.

If no such special circumstances exist, the state of the proceedings does not permit the Court to give final judgment in the matter for the purposes of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 13(1) of Annex I to the Statute. The Court can therefore only refer the case back to the first instance court for it to rule on the claims relating to the substance of the action.

(see paras 37-38)

See: C-197/09 RX-II Review M v EMEA [2009] ECR I-12033, paras 30, 32-34, 36 and 37
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Review of legality — Criteria — Account taken only of the factual and legal elements existing at the date on which the contested measure was adopted (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 70)

2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement borne by the Commission — Extent of the burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 83, 130)

3. Union law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Presumption of innocence — Procedures in competition matters — Decision finding an infringement but not imposing a fine — Applicability (Art. 81(1) EC; Art. 6(2) EU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48(1)) (see paras 84-88)

4. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Means of proof — Reliance on a body of evidence — Degree of evidential value necessary as regards items of evidence viewed in isolation — Evidence based solely on the conduct of undertakings — Evidential obligations on undertakings disputing the existence of the infringement — Obligations of the Commission challenging the plausibility of the explanations proposed by the undertakings (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 89-93, 99, 153)

5. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Agreements which continue to produce their effects after they have formally ceased to be in force — Application of Article 81 EC (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 115)

6. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Concerted practice — Parallel conduct — Presumption that a concertation exists — Limits — Refusal by national copyright management societies to allow a user established in another Member State direct access to their repertoire — Adverse effect on competition (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 129)

7. Actions for annulment — Judicial review — Limits on jurisdiction (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 175)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2013 — Poste Italiane v Commission

(Case T‑525/08)

‛State aid — Remuneration of funds from postal accounts placed with the Italian Treasury — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Advantage’

1. State aid — Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market — Discretion of the Commission — Complex evaluation of economic matters — Judicial review — Limits (Art. 87(1) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999) (see paras 47-49, 67, 68)

2. State aid — Concept — Granting of an advantage to beneficiaries — Assessment having regard to all relevant factors of the disputed operation and its context — State intervention consisting in requiring an undertaking to make a treasury deposit and remunerating that deposit at a contractually determined rate — Account to be taken of the cumulative effect of the consequences entailed by the State intervention — No advantage (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 59-63, 106, 107)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/178/EC of 16 July 2008 on the State aid C 42/06 (ex NN 52/06) implemented by Italy to remunerate current accounts held by Poste Italiane with the State Treasury (OJ 2009 L 64, p. 4).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2009/178/EC of 16 July 2008 on the State aid C 42/06 (ex NN 52/06) implemented by Italy to remunerate current accounts held by Poste Italiane with the State Treasury;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 – ERNI Electronics v OHIM (MaxiBridge)

(Case T-132/08)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark MaxiBridge – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptiveness of the function of the goods indicated in the trade mark application – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 34, 47-50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2008 (Case R 1530/2006-4) regarding the registration of the word sign MaxiBridge as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: ERNI Electronics GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark ‘MaxiBridge’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 17 – Application No 4899647 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 (First Chamber) of 10 March 2009 – Piccoli v OHIM (Shape of a seashell)

(Case T-8/08)

Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark – Shape of a seashell – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Lack of distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94

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) and (3) (see paras 17, 21-25, 38-40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2007 (Case R 530/2007-1) concerning an application to register as a Community trade mark a three‑dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a seashell.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: G.M. Piccoli Srl Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a seashell seen from four different angles for goods in Class 30 – Appliction No 4522892 Decision of the Examiner: Application for registration dismissed in respect of ‘preparations of cereals, patisseries, confectionery and ice cream’ Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2009 – Earle Beauty v OHIM (SUPERSKIN)

(Case T-486/08)

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

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 27, 37-44, 50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2008 (Case R 1656/2007‑4), concerning registration of the word sign SUPERSKIN as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Liz Earle Beauty Co. Ltd Community trade mark sought: Word mark SUPERSKIN for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 44 – Application No 5967856 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





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 15 September 2008 (Case R 1656/2007‑4), in respect of perfumes, nail and hair care preparations, antiperspirants, deodorants, dentifrice, hair colouring preparations, hair spray, eyecare preparations, nail varnish, nail varnish remover and artificial nails, in Class 3, and hygienic care and cosmetic treatments for the hair, in Class 44;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 11 November 2009 – Bayer Healthcare v OHIM – Uriach-Aquilea OTC (CITRACAL)

(Case T-277/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark CITRACAL – Earlier national word mark CICATRAL – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the goods – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39, 59-60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 May 2008 (Case R 459/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Uriach-Aquilea OTC, SL and Bayer Healthcare LLC.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bayer Healthcare LLC Community trade mark sought: Word mark CITRACAL for goods in Class 5 – Application No 1757855 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Uriach-Aquilea OTC, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark CICATRAL for goods in Classes 1 and 5 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 January 2010 – REWE‑Zentral v OHIM – Grupo Corporativo Teype (Solfrutta)

(Case T-331/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark Solfrutta – Earlier Community word mark FRUTISOL – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Partial refusal of registration – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 27-30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2008 (Case R 1679/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Grupo Corporativo Teype, SL and REWE-Zentral AG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: REWE-Zentral AG Community trade mark sought: The word mark Solfrutta for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Grupo Corporativo Teype, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 1687722 of the word mark FRUTISOL for goods in Class 32; Spanish trade mark registration No 2018327 of the word mark FRUTISOL for goods in Class 32 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2008 (Case R 1679/2007-2);