ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 11 May 2010 – Wessang v OHIM – Greinwald (star foods)

(Case T-492/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the figurative Community trade mark star foods – Earlier Community figurative and word marks STAR SNACKS – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 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 19, 59-60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2008 (Case R 1408/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Nicolas Wessang and Greinwald GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Greinwald GmbH Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark star foods in Classes 29, 30 and 32 – Application No 4105615 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Nicolas Wessang Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative and word marks STAR SNACKS for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 31 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and the opposition 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 17 September 2008 (Case R 1408/2007-4);

2. Orders Greinwald GmbH to pay its own costs and one third of those of Nicolas Wessang;

3. Orders Mr Wessang to pay two thirds of his own costs;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 – Travel Service v OHIM – Eurowings Luftverkehrs (smartWings)

(Case T-72/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark smartWings – Earlier national and international word and figurative marks EUROWINGS and EuroWings – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – 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) – Duty to state reasons – Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) – Article 79 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009)

1. 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 para. 45)

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 53, 62)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2007 (Case R 1515/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG and Travel Service a.s.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Travel Service, a.s. Community trade mark sought: Figurative Community trade mark smartWings for goods and services in Classes 16, 21, 37, 39, 41 and 43 – Application No 3650595 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and international word mark EuroWings for goods and services in Classes 16 and 41, the national and international word mark EUROWINGS for goods and services in Classes 39 and 42 and the national word mark WINGSGLASS for goods and services in Classes 16, 39, 41 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commmission

(Case T-387/08)

Public service contracts – Publications Office’s tendering procedure – Provision of computing services – Rejection of a tenderer’s bid – Action for annulment – Award criteria and sub-criteria – Duty to state reasons – Equal treatment – Transparency – Manifest error of assessment – Misuse of powers – Claim for damages

1. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see paras 30, 77)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Comission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 31-38, 58-60, 63-67)

Re:

APPLICATION (i) for annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 20 June 2008 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in Call for Tender AO 10185 for computing services – maintenance of the SEI‑BUD/AMD/CR systems and related services and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer, and (ii) for damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2010 – Interflon v OHIM – Illinois Tool Works (FOODLUBE)

(Case T-200/08)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community trade mark FOODLUBE – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptiveness – Distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(b), and (c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 31, 47-48, 61-66)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2008 (Case R 638/2007‑2) concerning invalidity proceedings between Interflon BV and Illinois Tool Works, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: Word mark FOODLUBE for goods in Classes 1 and 4 – Registration No 1647734 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Illinois Tools Works, Inc. Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Interflon BV Trade mark of the party seeking cancellation: The applicant argues that the contested Community trade mark was registered in infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for cancellation dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





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 3 March 2008 (Case R 638/2007‑2) in so far as it dismisses the appeal with regard to chemicals used in industry in Class 1, and industrial oils and greases and lubricants in Class 4;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 March 2011 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-589/08)

Public service contracts – Tender procedure – Provision of IT and user support services relating to the Community emissions trading scheme – Rejection of bid – Award criteria – Duty to state reasons – Manifest error of assessment – Equal treatment – Transparency

1. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see para. 24)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 63-64, 80)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 112)

Re:

First, application for the annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 13 October 2008, rejecting the bids submitted by the applicant for each of the three lots relating to open invitation to tender DG ENV.C2/FRA/2008/0017 ‘Framework contract for Emission Trading Scheme – CITL/CR’ (2008/ S 72-096229) and to award those contracts to another tenderer and, secondly, a claim for damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2010 – Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Representation of a reindeer made of chocolate)

(Case T-337/08)

Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark – Representation of a reindeer made of chocolate – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 24, 41-42, 46-48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 June 2008 (Case R 780/2005-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the representation of a reindeer made of chocolate.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional mark, representing a reindeer made of chocolate, for goods in Class 30 – Application No 4098489 Decision of the examiner: Application dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2011 – Habanos v OHIM – Tabacos de Centroamérica (KIOWA)

(Case T-207/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark KIOWA – Earlier Community and national figurative marks COHIBA – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity of 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 29, 63-64)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 March 2008 (Case R 1189/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Corporación Habanos, SA and Tabacos de Centroamérica, SL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Tabacos de Centroamérica, SL Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark KIOWA in respect of goods in Class 34 – Application No 3963931 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Corporación Habanos, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark COHIBA (Community mark No 3323292), word mark COHIBA (Spanish mark No 1271173) and the figurative mark COHIBA (Spanish mark No 2052344) in respect of products in Class 34 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Corporación Habanos, SA to bear its own costs and pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 September 2011 – Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat v OHIM – Quant Cosmetics Japan (AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA)

(Case T-523/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA – Earlier national and Community figurative marks representing a black and white flower – Likelihood of confusion – 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 25, 31, 49, 62)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2008 (Case R 1522/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mary Quant Cosmetics Japan Ltd and Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 February 2012 —

Dow Chemical v Commission



(Case T‑77/08)

Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for chloroprene rubber — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Price-fixing — Market-sharing — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Joint venture — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation

1. Competition — European Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 73‑77)

2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Statement of objections — Necessary content — Observance of the rights of the defence — Clear indication of the parties liable to be fined and the capacity in which they are to be penalised (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 27(1)) (see para. 110)

3. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Judicial review — Assessment of the duration of the infringement by progressive six-month thresholds — Period longer than that of the actual participation in the infringement — Lawfulness — Conditions (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02) (see paras 92‑145)

4. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Reduction of the amount of the fine for cooperation of the undertaking concerned — Conditions — Discretion of the Commission (Commission Notice 2002/C 45/03) (see paras 157‑164, 167)

Re:

APPLICATION for, principally, annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38629 — Chloroprene Rubber), as amended by Commission Decision C(2008) 2974 final of 23 June 2008, in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 November 2011 – Elliniki Nafpigokataskevastiki and Others v Commission

(Case T-384/08)

State aid – Shipbuilding – Aid granted by the Greek authorities in the form of an indemnification guarantee – Decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market – Concept of State aid – Imputability to the State – State resources – Private investor test

1. State aid – Concept – Aid granted by a public undertaking – State-controlled undertaking – Whether aid measure automatically attributable to the State – Not automatically attributable – Series of indicators to be taken into consideration (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 50-54, 63-69)

2. State aid – Concept – Guarantee given by the State – Included – State resources not immediately and certainly mobilised – Not relevant (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 89-90)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Article 16 of Commission Decision 2009/610/EC of 2 July 2008 on the measures C 16/04 (ex NN 29/04, CP 71/02 and CP 133/05) implemented by Greece in favour of Hellenic Shipyards SA (OJ 2009 L 225, p. 104).

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

–

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 21, 38

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2008 (Case R 858/2007-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 and Mr Rahmi Özdemir.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Rahmi Özdemir 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 – Weighting of the elements of similarity or difference between the signs – Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the marketing conditions of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 35)

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 58)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 February 2009 (Case R 657/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Perry Ellis International Group Holdings, Ltd and Vidieffe Srl.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

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 12 February 2009 (Case R 657/2008-1), in so far as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division, inasmuch as that decision rejected the opposition, first, in respect of ‘[leather and imitations of leather] goods (not included in other classes); trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks’ in Class 18 and, second, in respect of all the goods in Class 25;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Vidieffe Srl.
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 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 27

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Case R 237/2009-2), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing two curves on a pocket.

Information relating to the case

>lt>27

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Rosenruist – Gestão e serviços, L da 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see points 21, 23-32

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2009 (Case R 1470/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Harry Wind and Sanyang Industry Co., Ltd.

Information relating to the case

>lt>16

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Harry Wind to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Measures of organisation of procedure – Request that internal documents of an institution be removed from the file – Documents irregularly obtained – Retention on file – Criteria (see paras 61-63)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament concerning the recovery of sums paid to an MEP by way of parliamentary assistance allowance – Duty to state specific, adequate reasons for each amount regarded as unjustified (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 98-99, 109, 111)

3. European Parliament – Regulation governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Parliamentary assistance allowance – Lack of documents to evidence use in accordance with rules – Obligation to repay – Conditions for granting the allowance met at the time of the application – No effect (see paras 122-124)

4. European Parliament – Regulation governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Parliamentary assistance allowance – Provider of parliamentary assistance services not having honoured his tax obligations arising from the fees relating thereto – Liability of the MEP making the application vis-à-vis the Parliament – None (see paras 150-155)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Decision D (2009) 4639 of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2009 concerning the recovery of sums paid to the applicant by way of parliamentary allowances.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Decision D (2009) 4639 of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2009 as regards the recovery of the sum of GBP 193 001;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Parliament and Mr Densmore Ronald Dover each to bear their own costs.