ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Appeal procedure against decisions of the awarding authority to award public contracts – Audi alteram partem rule – Reconciliation with the protection of business secrets – Bodies responsible for review procedures – Duty to ensure confidentiality and the right to respect for business secrets having regard to information contained in files communicated by the parties – Conditions – Reconciliation of that obligation with the requirements of effective legal protection and respect for defence rights (Art. 267 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2)) (see paras 25-26)

2. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Award of contracts – Most economically advantageous tender – Award criteria – Choice of the contracting authorities – Limits – Compliance with the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 97; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 138) (see paras 64, 66)

3. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Obligation to comply with the principle of equal treatment of tenderers – Need to ensure equality of opportunity and comply with the principle of transparency – Scope of the duty of transparency (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 89) (see para. 65)

4. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see para. 121)

5. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 167)

6. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Expenses incurred by a tenderer – Right to compensation – None (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 101) (see para. 173)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for the annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union, communicated by letter of 17 December 2009, to reject the tender submitted by the applicant under invitation to tender No 10234 ‘Daily transport and delivery of the Official Journal, books, other periodicals and publications’ (OJ 2009/S 176-253034) and award the contract to the successful tenderer, and, second, for damages.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders bpost NV van publiek recht to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2012 — Volkswagen v OHIM — Suzuki Motor (SWIFT GTi)

(Case T-63/09)

‛Community Trade Mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SWIFT GTi — Earlier international and national marks GTI — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Rejection of the opposition’

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 40-42, 117-118, 127, 131-135)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2008 (Case R 749/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Volkswagen AG and Suzuki Motor Corp.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2012 — Volkswagen v OHIM — Suzuki Motor (SWIFT GTi)

(Case T-63/09)

‛Community Trade Mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SWIFT GTi — Earlier international and national marks GTI — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Rejection of the opposition’

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 40-42, 117-118, 127, 131-135)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2008 (Case R 749/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Volkswagen AG and Suzuki Motor Corp.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 28, 49‑52

)
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty — Actions by producers, exporters or importers of the products concerned, or by the manufacturer of original equipment — Admissibility — Conditions (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 21-28, 49, 54, 62)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty — Undertaking able to rely on its participation in the administrative procedure — Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 33-36, 58)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Interpretation, contrary to law, of the requirement of being individually concerned — Not permissible (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 47, 65)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Insula v Commission

(Case T-366/09)

‛Arbitration clause — Financing contracts for research and development projects — Ecres, El Hierro, Islands 2010, Opet I, Opet II, Opet Ola, Respire, Sustainable Communities and Virtual Campus contracts — Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements in respect of some of the declared expenses — Reimbursement of sums advanced — Partial inadmissibility of the action — Counterclaim by the Commission’

1. Proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Contract providing for Community financial assistance for a research and development project — Claim for repayment of certain costs — Claim for damages — Counterclaim with claim for default interest — Application of national law — Finding of non-compliance with contractual obligations — Commission’s right to repayment of the advance, plus default interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank (Art. 238 EC; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 86(2)) (see paras 81, 105, 203-206, 262)

2. Proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Contract subject to national law — Application of national provisions on jurisdiction — Exclusion (Art. 238 EC) (see para. 82)

3. Proceedings — Subject-matter of the dispute — Alteration once proceedings have been started — Prohibition (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1) and 48(2)) (see paras 88, 89)

4. Proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Amplification of an existing plea and close link with the latter (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 48(2)) (see para. 224)

5. Proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Action for compensation for damage caused by a Community institution — Application seeking compensation in the abstract with no explanation in that regard — Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 229, 241, 247)

Re:

APPLICATION, on the basis of Article 238 EC, for a declaration, first, that a claim of the Commission of EUR 114 996.82 is unfounded and, second, that a claim of the Commission of EUR 253 617.08 is well founded in part, and that the Commission be ordered to pay the applicant damages of EUR 146 261.06, principally, and of EUR 573 273.42, in the alternative.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action brought by the Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula);

2. Orders Insula to pay the European Commission the principal sum of EUR 114 996.82, increased by default interest at the rate of 2.5% per annum, from 16 August 2009 until full payment of that principal sum;

3. Orders Insula to pay the Commission the principal sum of EUR 253 617.08, increased by default interest at the rate of 2.5% per annum, from 8 September 2009 until full payment of that principal sum;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the Commission’s counterclaim;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Interpretation having regard to the rationale of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 25)

2. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 26-28, 38-40, 57, 59, 60)

3. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 29)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 50)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — Account to be taken only of Community legislation — Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States — Decisions not binding Community bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 52)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2009 (Case R 623/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG and Wedl & Hofmann GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 1 March 2016 —

Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Selecciones Americanas (VOGUE CAFÉ)

(Case T‑40/09)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Community word mark VOGUE CAFÉ — Earlier national figurative marks Vogue and VOGUE studio and application for the Community figurative mark VOGUE — Genuine use of earlier marks — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Interest in bringing proceedings — Revocation of the earlier Community trade mark founding the opposition (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 45, 54(1), 57(1), second sentence, and 62(3)) (see paras 24, 29)

2. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 39, 40)

3. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Application of the criteria to the case in question (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see para. 41)

4. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see para. 42)

5. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal to a Board of Appeal — Stay of proceedings — Conditions (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 20(7)(c)) (see paras 61-63)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2008 (Case R 0280/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Selecciones Americanas, SA and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2008 (Case R 0280/2008-4), in so far as it concludes that there is a likelihood of confusion between the Community trade mark applied for, VOGUE CAFÉ, and the Spanish figurative mark VOGUE studio registered under number 2529728;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2010 – Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH)

(Case T-15/09)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark EURO AUTOMATIC CASH – Absolute grounds for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Distinctive 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 32, 37, 44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2008 (Case R 70/2006‑4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign EURO AUTOMATIC CASH as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Européenne de traitement de l’Information (Euro-Information) Community trade mark sought: Word mark EURO AUTOMATIC CASH for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 42 – application No 4114864 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 18 November 2008 (Case R 70/2006-4);

2. Orders OHIM to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the parties before the Court;

3. Orders Européenne de traitement de l'information (Euro-Information) to pay one fifth of the costs incurred by the parties before the Court;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2010 – Deutsche Bahn v OHIM (Vertical combination of the colours grey and red)

(Case T-405/09)

Community trade mark – Application for Community trade mark consisting in a vertical combination of the colours grey and red – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 28-37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 (Case R-372/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of a colour sign, consisting in the combination of the colours grey and red, as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Deutsche Bahn AG Community trade mark sought: Trade mark consisting of the combination of the colours grey and red for services in Class 39 – Application No 6735401 Decision of the examiner: Application refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1.Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 28 September 2010 – Rosenruist v OHIM (Representation of two curves on a pocket)

(Case T-388/09)

Community trade mark – Application for Community figurative mark representing two curves on a pocket – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 27)

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

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Rosenruist – Gestão e serviços, Lda Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark representing two curves crossed at one point inserted on a pocket for goods and services in Classes 18 and 25 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 General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2010 – Earle Beauty v OHIM (NATURALLY ACTIVE)

(Case T-307/09)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark NATURALLY ACTIVE – Absolute ground for refusal – No inherent distinctive character – No distinctive character acquired by use − Article 7(1)(b) and (3) 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 – Word mark NATURALLY ACTIVE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para 24, 26-28, 32-37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 May 2009 (Case R 27/2009-2) concerning registration of the word sign NATURALLY ACTIVE 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 NATURALLY ACTIVE for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 16, 18, 35 and 44 – Application No 6531438 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused 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 11 May 2009 (Case R 27/2009‑2) in so far as it refused registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign NATURALLY ACTIVE for wash bags, cosmetic bags and cases, beach bags, handbags, shoulder bags, draw string bags, purses, wallets, vanity cases, make-up bags, canvas bags, and cases for mirrors in Class 18 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 March 2011 – Commission v Edificios Inteco

(Case T-235/09)

Arbitration clause – Programme concerning the promotion of energy technologies for Europe (Thermie) – Contract concerning the construction in Valladolid (Spain) of a commercial and business centre equipped with a solar powered air conditioning system – Non-performance of the contract – Reimbursement of sums advanced – Late payment interest – Procedure by default

Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Contract concluded between the Commission and a company for implementing a project under the programme concerning the promotion of energy technologies for Europe (Thermie) – Non-performance of the contract – Right of the Commission to repayment of the sums advanced, plus interest for delay (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 49-55, 66, 70-71, 74-75)

Re:

ACTION brought by the Commission pursuant to Article 238 EC for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 157 238.07, paid by it to the defendant in relation to a construction project in Valladolid of a commercial and business centre equipped with a solar powered air conditioning system (contract BU/1041/93) plus late payment interest.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Edificios Inteco SL to reimburse to the European Commission the sum of EUR 157 238.07, plus EUR 81 686.22 corresponding to interest due on 1 June 2009;

2. Orders Edificios Inteco to reimburse the Commission the sum of EUR 21.73796 for each additional day’s delay from 2 June 2009 to payment in full of the debt;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 April 2011 – Tubesca v OHIM – Tubos del Mediterráneo (T TUMESA TUBOS DEL MEDITERRANEO S.A.)

(Case T-98/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark T TUMESA TUBOS DEL MEDITERRANEO S.A. – Earlier national word mark and international figurative mark TUBESCA – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 – High distinctiveness of the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 82-84)

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 70, 85)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2008 (Case R 518/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Tubesca and Tubos del Mediterráneo, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Tubos del Mediterráneo, SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark T TUMESA TUBOS DEL MEDITERRANEO S.A. for goods and services in Classes 6, 35 and 42 – Application No 4085098 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Tubesca Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and international word and figurative marks TUBESCA for goods in Classes 6, 19 and 20 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld; partial refusal to register the mark applied for Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled; opposition dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;