ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2005 − Greencore Group v Commission

(Case T-135/02)

Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance – Reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant – Failure then refusal of the Commission to pay interest on the sum refunded – Action for annulment – Principle of legal certainty

1. Competition – Fines – Refunding of a sum overpaid with no decision taken as to the request for payment of default interest – Express refusal to pay interest on a subsequent request for this to be paid – Refusal based on the request being made out of time in the light of the earlier implied refusal and the requirements of legal certainty – Unlawful having regard to the circumstances of the case (see paras 56-57, 63-69)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decisions – Curing a defect in the statement of reasons during the proceedings before the Court – Not permissible (see para. 58)

3. Appeals – Judgment of the Court of Justice – Binding on the Court of First Instance – Scope (see paras 61-62)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of the decision of 11 February 2002 by which the Commission refused to grant the applicant’s request for default interest to be paid to its subsidiary Irish Sugar plc on the principal sum repaid to the latter to comply with a judgment of the Court of First Instance.

Operative part

The Court:

Annuls the decision of 11 February 2002, by which the Commission refused to grant the applicant’s request for default interest to be paid to its subsidiary Irish Sugar plc on the principal sum repaid to the latter to comply with a judgment of the Court of First Instance;
Keywords

Summary



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 the goods – Word mark ‘APPLIED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION’

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c))

Summary

From the point of view of the relevant public, which is composed of the relevant specialist consumers in the field of protein engineering, the word mark APPLIED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION may serve to designate, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 40/94 on the Community trade mark, one of the essential services referred to in the trade mark application.

The relevant public, which is particularly well informed, will be able, without special effort, to associate the words ‘molecular evolution’ with the field of genetic material, a field included in the services claimed. The word ‘applied’ reinforces the descriptiveness of those words. The fact that the words can have another connotation does not mean that they are not descriptive in relation to the services claimed. Furthermore, as the word mark at issue as a whole is composed of a combination of words that conforms to English syntax, the association of those words cannot diminish their descriptiveness.

(see paras 23, 27-28)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Discretionary power of the Community institutions – Limits – Observance of the procedural guarantees conferred by the Community legal order in administrative procedures – Taking into account, in fixing production aid, the price of the raw material in one of the main producing and exporting countries – None – Illegality capable of engaging the non-contractual liability of the Community

(Council Regulation No 2201/96, Art. 4(1) and (2); Council Regulation No 1519/2000)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Actual and certain damage caused by an unlawful act – Burden of proof

(Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC)

Summary

1. In matters relating to the common agricultural policy, the Commission enjoys a discretion, while being required, by virtue of the principles of a duty of care and of sound administration, to gather the factual elements necessary for the exercise of its discretion. Where a Community institution has a wide discretion, observance of the procedural guarantees conferred by the Community legal order is of even more fundamental importance. Those guarantees include, in particular, the obligation for the competent institution to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant elements of the individual case.

Concerning Regulation No 1519/2000 setting for the 2000/01 marketing year the minimum price and the amount of production aid for processed tomato products, the Commission, by taking no account whatsoever of the price of the raw material in one of the main producing and exporting third countries, namely China, failed to comply with the mandatory conditions laid down in Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2201/96 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products, which establishes the data which the Commission must take into account when fixing the amount of production aid.

Such an illegality, which constitutes a sufficiently serious breach of a rule intended to confer rights on individuals, is capable of engaging the non-contractual liability of the Community owing to its harmful consequences.

(see paras 49, 61)

2. In the context of the non-contractual liability of the Community, the damage for which compensation is sought must be actual and certain. It is for the applicant to produce to the Court the evidence to establish the fact and the extent of such damage. Accordingly, if the damage calculated by the applicants is not certain, the action for damages must be dismissed.

(see paras 70-71, 77)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Actions before the Community judicature – Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to the proceedings – Subrogation of the transferee of the earlier mark to the rights of the opposing party

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(4))

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 including the words ‘canal’, ‘jean’, ‘co’ and ‘New York’ and word mark CANALI

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

Summary

1. Article 63(4) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark provides that an action against a decision of a Board of Appeal is ‘open to any party to proceedings before the Board of Appeal adversely affected by its decision’.

As regards opposition proceedings, the new owners of an earlier trade mark may, in that context, bring an action before the Court and should be accepted as a party to the proceedings once they have proven ownership of the right invoked before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

Since the new holder of the earlier trade mark has submitted proof of transfer of the mark, for his part, and the Office has recorded that transfer following the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, he therefore becomes the party to the proceedings before the Office.

(see paras 18-20)

2. There is no likelihood of confusion in the minds of average consumers in Italy between the figurative sign comprising, besides a chequered pattern, the word elements ‘canal’, ‘jean’, ‘co’ and ‘New York’, in respect of which registration as a Community trade mark is sought for ‘Clothing, footwear, headgear’ falling within Class 25 of the Nice Agreement, and the word mark CANALI, registered previously in Italy for goods and services in Classes 3, 6, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 34 and 42, where, even though the goods covered by the mark applied for are identical to the goods designated by the earlier trade mark, the absence of visual, aural and conceptual similarity between the relevant signs is sufficient to preclude that likelihood in the minds of the relevant public, so that Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 does not apply.

(see paras 45, 51, 56, 60, 63-65)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition – Administrative procedure – Decision ordering an investigation – Duty to state reasons – Scope (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 36-37)

2. Competition – Administrative procedure – Decision ordering an investigation – Respect for the principle of proportionality (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 62-64)

3. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s powers of investigation – Scope – Access to the premises of undertakings (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14) (see paras 69-72)

4. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s powers of investigation – Decision ordering an investigation – Request for assistance addressed to national authorities – Judicial review – Exclusive competence of the national court (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14(6)) (see para. 75)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for, firstly, the annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 1524/9 of 7 May 2003 in Case COMP/D1/38.606 ordering Groupement des cartes bancaires and its subsidiaries to submit to an investigation under Article 14(3) of Council Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles [81] and [82] of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87), as amended, and, secondly, action for the removal from the file of all documents and other evidence brought to the knowledge of the Commission during the investigation and for their return to the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Commission decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of that treaty (Art. 65(1), (4) and (5) CS; Council Regulation No 17, Arts 3 and 15(2)) (see paras 58, 60, 75-76, 79)

2. ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Commission’s competence under Article 65(4) and (5) CS to establish and penalise an infringement of Article 65(1) CS – Disappearance on expiry of the ECSC Treaty (Arts 65(1), (4) and (5) CS and 97 CS; Art. 305(1) EC; Merger Treaty) (see paras 91-94, 96, 98)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002, relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 – Reinforcing bars).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 – Reinforcing bars) with regard to Ferriere Nord SpA;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ferriere Nord;

3. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Actual and certain damage – Burden of proof (Art. 288 EC) (see para. 49)

2. Non-contractual liability – Damage – Compensation – Account taken of inflation – Compensatory interest – Rules for calculation (Art. 288 EC) (see paras 50-51)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as the result of the method used to calculate the amount of production aid under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1519/2000 of 12 July 2000 setting for the 2000/01 marketing year the minimum price and the amount of production aid for processed tomato products (OJ 2000 L 174, p. 29).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders the Commission to pay to Agraz SA and the 86 other companies listed in Annexes I and II damages equivalent to an increase of 15.54% in the amount of production aid which they received for the 2000/01 marketing year, as set by Annex II to Regulation No 1519/2000;

2. Orders those damages to be reassessed using compensatory interest as from the time of actual payment of the aid to each applicant up to the date of delivery of the present judgment, at the rate fixed by the ECB for principal refinancing operations, plus two points, in respect of the applicants listed in Annex I, and at the rate of annual inflation determined for the period in question by Eurostat in the Member State where they are established, in respect of the applicants listed in Annex II;

3. Orders that the damages, as reassessed, be accompanied by default interest, as from the date of delivery of the present judgment until complete payment, at the rate set by the ECB for principal refinancing operations, plus two points;

4. Orders Agraz and the 86 other companies listed in Annexes I and II to bear two fifths of their own costs, before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice;

5. Orders the Commission to bear it own costs and pay three fifths of the costs incurred by Agraz and the 86 other companies listed in Annexes I and II, before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 11 July 2007 – Fédération des industries condimentaires de France and Others v Commission

(Case T-90/03)

Non-contractual liability – Incompatibility of the Community prohibition on the importation of meat containing substances having a hormonal action with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) – Imposition by the United States of America of a surcharge on the import of products from the Community pursuant to WTO authorisation – Termination by the Commission of proceedings to investigate trade barriers – Application for compensation of groups of Community exporters adversely affected by the surcharge

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of Community law (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 37, 47-53, 61-63, 135-137)

Re:

APPLICATION for compensation for the damage allegedly caused by the Commission’s purportedly unlawful action in the face of retaliatory trade measures taken by the United States of America in the so-called case on ‘beef having a hormonal action’.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the application;

Orders the applicants jointly and severally to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2006 − Volkswagen v OHIM

(Case T-317/03)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark Variant – Earlier national word mark DERBIVARIANT – Refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal – Likelihood of confusion – Articles 74(1) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 43(5), 62(1), and 74(1)) (see paras 17-18)

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 59-60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2003 (Case R 610/2001-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Nacional Motor, SA and Volkswagen AG

Information relating to the case:

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Volkswagen AG Community trade mark sought: Word mark ‘VARIANT’, Application to register No 861112, for goods in Classes 7, 12 and 37 (including motors, including their parts, vehicles and repairs) Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Nacional Motor SA Mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Spanish word marks ‘DERBIVARIANT’ ‘DERBI VARIANT’ and ‘VARIANTDERBI’ for goods in Class 12 (including vehicules) Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and dismissal of the application for registration





Operative part

The Court:

1. Sets aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 June 2003 in so far as it dismisses the application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign Variant for goods and services other than those in Classes 7, 12 and 37;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 13 March 2008 – Maison de l’Europe Avignon Méditerranée v Commission

(Case T-43/03)

Non-contractual liability – ‘Info point Europe’ label – Statements made by an agent of the Commission about the applicant

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 20, 46-47)

2. Officials – Rights and obligations – Acts liable to reflect on official’s position – Scope (Staff Regulations, Art. 12, first para.) (see para. 33)

3. Officials – Rights and obligations – Acts liable to reflect on official’s position (Staff Regulations, Art. 12, first para.) (see paras 37-39)

4. European Communities – Institutions – Obligations – Preservation of professional secrecy – Scope (Art. 287 EC) (see paras 40-45)

Re:

APPLICATION for damages for harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of statements made by the Commission’s agent in Marseille at a meeting on 23 January 2003.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2009 – Socratec v Commission

(Case T-269/03)

Competition – Concentrations – Market in road traffic telematic systems – Applicant declared insolvent in course of proceedings – No further legal interest in bringing proceedings – No need to adjudicate

Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Need for an actual and current interest – Action seeking annulment of a Commission decision declaring a concentration operation compatible with the common market – Action brought by a competitor of the parties to the operation put into liquidation in the course of the proceedings (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 20, 36-41, 43, 47)

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Decision 2003/792/EC of 30 April 2003 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2903 – DaimlerChrysler/Deutsche Telekom Joint Venture) (OJ 2003 L 300, p. 62).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action;

2. Orders Socratec – Satellite Navigation Consulting, Research & Technology GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission, Daimler AG, Daimler Financial Services AG, Deutsche Telekom AG and Toll Collect GmbH;

3. Orders Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe BV to bear its own 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 74-75, 82

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2004 (Case R 676/2002-1) relating to opposition proceedings between David Branch and Telefónica, SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 38, 45

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2003 (Cases R 419/2001-1 and R 530/2001-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Jesús Gómez Frías and Eurodrive Services and Distribution NV.

Information relating to the case:

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 43(5), 62(1) and 74(1)) (see paras 43-51)

2. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 81-94)

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 110-127)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2004 (Case R 154/2002-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG and Salvatore Gagliardi.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

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 15 June 2004 (Case R 154/2002-4) in so far as it refuses the application for registration of the mark MANŪ MANU MANU, first, for ‘footwear’ and ‘headgear’ in Class 25 and second, for goods in Classes 18 and 24;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and a third of those incurred by the applicant;

4. Orders the applicant, Salvatore Gagliardi, to bear two thirds of its own costs;

5. Orders the intervener, Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG, to bear its own 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 57-59

)

Subject of the case

Re:

TWO ACTIONS brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2004 (Cases R 1034/2001‑4 and R 1036/2001‑4) concerning opposition proceedings between Panrico, SA and House of Donuts International.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and of the intervener.
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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 52-53

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2004 (Case R 513/2002-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Companhia Geral da Agricultura das Vinhas do Alto Douro, SA (Real Companhia Velha) and Bodegas Franco-Españolas, SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

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 25 October 2004 (Case R 513/2002-1);

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.