ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Decisions of the Office – Observance of the rights of the defence

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73)

Summary

1. A decision of a Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) which, at the time of adopting a decision rejecting an application for a Community trade mark, takes account of facts which were not communicated to the applicant prior to the adoption of that decision infringes Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, according to which OHIM decisions may be based only on grounds on which the parties have been able to take a position. The very conclusion of that decision is vitiated where it is based on those factual elements.

(see paras 45-46, 55)

2. The duty to give reasons for a decision laid down in the first sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark has two purposes: to allow interested parties to know the reasons for the measure so as to enable them to defend their rights and to enable the Community judicature to exercise its power to review the legality of the decision. Whether a statement of reasons satisfies those requirements is a question to be assessed with reference not only to its wording but also to its context and the whole body of legal rules governing the matter in question.

The sending of the points of fact constituting the basis of a decision of the Board of Appeal of the OHIM in the form of internet links which are inaccessible at the time of the Court’s investigation of the case, or in the form of accessible links whose content has changed or might have changed since the examination by the examiner or the Board of Appeal, does not constitute a sufficient statement of reasons since it does not enable the Court to review the validity of the contested decision.

(see paras 57, 59)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding an infringement consisting in the conclusion of an anti‑competitive agreement – Compliance with the principle of the presumption on innocence – Degree of probative force required for the Commission’s evidence (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 68, 70-72, 74)

2. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Participation of an undertaking in a meeting of the parties to a planned cartel – Circumstance permitting the conclusion that it participated in the subsequent cartel – Condition (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 90-91, 96)

3. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Undertaking which facilitated the entry into force of an anti‑competitive agreement which required action on its part – Circumstance permitting the conclusion that it participated in the agreement – Merely being informed of the existence of the agreement not sufficient (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 105, 110, 117, 119-120, 168)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria defined in guidelines issued by the Commission – Seriousness and duration of the infringement – Attenuating circumstances – Passive or ‘follow-my-leader’ role of the undertaking (Art. 81(1) EC; Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 199-200, 204-207, 210, 212)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F-1/38.338 – PO/Needles) and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F‑1/38.338 – PO/Needles) in so far as the Decision finds that the applicants infringed Article 81(1) EC after 13 March 1997;

2. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants under Article 2 of the Decision at EUR 20 million;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

4. Orders the applicants to bear two thirds of their own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission, and the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the applicants.
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 72, 74

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2004 (Case R 250/2002-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Grether AG and Crisgo (Thailand) Co. Ltd.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

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 42-43, 50

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 December 2004 (Case R 330/2002-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Omega Engineering, Inc. and Omega SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Omega SA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute (Art. 288 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 43-48)

2. European Ombudsman – Duty to comply with the principle of confidentiality – Duty not to name persons not subject to his jurisdiction (see paras 126-133)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a higher rule of law protecting individuals (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 133-145)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Real and certain damage caused by an illegal act (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 146-158)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC for compensation for damage suffered by the applicant as a result of being named in the decision of the European Ombudsman of 18 July 2002 concerning the complaint registered with the reference 1288/99/OV and as a result of the negligent conduct of the Ombudsman concerning the investigation of that complaint and the conclusions he reached in that decision.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders the European Ombudsman to pay Mr M compensation of EUR 10 000;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute 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 56, 58-60

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 April 2005 (Case R 416/2004-4) relating to opposition proceedings between TKS-Teknosoft SA and Apple Computer, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Apple Computer Inc. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Procedural provisions

–

Statement of reasons for decisions (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see paras 15-17

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 August 2005 (Case R 24/2005-1) concerning registration of the word sign ULTIMATE FIGHTING as a Community trade mark.

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 8 August 2005 (Case R 24/2005-1);

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Communities

–

Institutions

–

Right of public access to documents

–

Regulation No 1049/2001

–

Exceptions to the right of access to documents (Regulation of the European Parliament and Council No 1049/2001, Art. 2(1) and 4(3), first para.) (see paras 74-75, 82, 84-88, 90-94

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 3 February 2005 refusing to grant access to certain documents relating to the September 2004 meeting of the Working Group of the ‘Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature Section (Mechanical/Miscellaneous) ’ of the Customs Code Committee.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 3 February 2005 inasmuch as it refused access to documents, ‘TAXUD/1369/2003’ relating to home cinema, ‘TAXUD/974/2004’ relating to vehicles for dual use, ‘TAXUD/1342/2003’, ‘TAXUD/2465/2004’ and ‘TAXUD/2495/2004’ relating to power supply units, ‘XXI/770/1998’ relating to incomplete ADP machines, and to the minutes of the September 2004 meeting of the Working Group of the ‘Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature Section (Mechanical/Miscellaneous)’ of the Customs Code Committee (document ‘TAXUD/3010/2004 – Annex V’);

2. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs incurred by Mr Pablo Muñiz.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 — Elf Aquitaine v Commission

(Case T-174/05)

‛Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Monochloroacetic acid market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Market sharing and price fixing — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Imputability of the infringement — Principle that penalties must fit the offence — Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis — Presumption of innocence — Principle of sound administration — Principle of legal certainty — Misuse of powers — Fines’

1. Competition — Administrative procedure — Statement of objections — Necessary content — Observance of the rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 23 and 27(1)) (see paras 55, 56, 70, 71, 196-198)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision to apply competition rules — Decision relating to several addressees (Arts 81 EC, 82 EC and 253 EC) (see paras 79, 80)

3. Competition — Community rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — No discretion of the Commission (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 106-108, 225-227)

4. Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Undertaking — Concept — Economic unit — Attribution of infringements — Parent company and subsidiaries — Joint and several liability of the companies concerned (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 121-124, 184-187, 192-194)

5. Competition — Community rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly-owned subsidiaries — Obligation of the parent company to rebut the presumption that management power was actually exercised over its subsidiary — Applicability of the presumption where the parent company holds nearly all the capital of the subsidiary (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 125, 151-156, 160, 172, 173)

Re:

APPLICATION for, principally, annulment of Articles 1(d), 2(c), 3 and 4(9) of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.773 — MCAA) or, in the alternative, application for annulment of Article 2(c) of that decision, or, in the further alternative, application for variation of the said Article 2(c).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2009 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-373/05)

‛EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Raw tobacco — Obligation to state reasons — Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999’

1. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope (see paras 50-51)

2. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts (see paras 65-67)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2005/579/EC of 20 July 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2005 L 199, p. 84), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic in the sector of raw tobacco.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2007 – AEPI v Commission

(Case T-229/05)

Competition – Copyright and related rights – Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Obligations relating to investigation of complaints – Absence of Community interest – Rejection

1. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Determination of priorities by the Commission (Arts 81 EC, 82 EC and 85(1) EC) (see paras 38-41, 44, 60-61)

2. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Effect on trade between Member States – Criteria (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 42-43)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision SG-Greffe (2005) D/201832 of 18 April 2005 rejecting a complaint concerning alleged infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by Greek organisations for collective management of rights related to copyright in music.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the application;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2007 – La Perla v OHIM – Worldgem Brands (NIMEI LA PERLA MODERN CLASSIC)

(Case T-137/05)

Community trade mark – Cancellation proceedings – Community word mark NIMEI LA PERLA MODERN CLASSIC – Earlier national figurative and word marks la PERLA and LA PERLA PARFUMS – Relative ground for refusal – Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94

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 enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 51)

Re:

APPEAL lodged against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 January 2005 (Case R 537/2004-1) relating to cancellation proceedings between Gruppo La Perla SpA and Worldgem Brands – Gestão e Investimentos L da .

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: Word mark NIMEI LA PERLA MODERN CLASSIC for goods in Class 14 – Application No 713446 Proprietor of the contested Community trade mark: Worldgem Brands – Gestão e Investimentos Lda, formerly Cielo Brands – Gestão e Investimentos Lda Party applying for cancellation: Gruppo La Perla SpA Trade marks of the applicant for cancellation: Italian marks: la PERLA, for goods in Class 25 – Figurative mark No 769526; LA PERLA PARFUMS, for goods in Class 3 – Word mark No 776082; la PERLA, for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25 and 35 – Figurative mark No 804992; la PERLA for goods in Class 3 – Figurative mark No GE 2002 C 000181 Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application upheld; Community trade mark cancelled Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed: decision of the Cancellation Division set aside





Operative part

The Court:

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 January 2005 (Case R537/2004-1);

Orders the intervener to bear its own costs and to bear one third of the applicant’s costs;

Orders the applicant to bear two thirds of its own costs;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2007 – Omega v OHIM – Omega Engineering (Ω OMEGA)

(Case T-90/05)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the figurative and word Community trade mark Ω OMEGA – Earlier national word mark OMEGA – Relative ground for refusal – Reliance by the applicant for the Community trade mark on a national trade mark identical to that applied for and earlier than the national mark cited in opposition – Likelihood of confusion

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 42-43, 50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 December 2004 (Case R 330/2002-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Omega Engineering, Inc. and Omega SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Omega SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative and word mark Ω OMEGA relating to goods and servics in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 25, 28, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 42 – Application No 225771 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Omega Engineering, Inc. Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative work marks OMEGA, MICROMEGA, OMEGA.COM, OMEGASOFT, OMEGANET, concerning goods in Classes 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 35, 41 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Refusal to register goods and services in Classes 9 and 42 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 14 July 2008 – Fresyga v Commission

(Case T-323/06)

Action for annulment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Decision 2006/613/EC – List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region – Challengeable act – Lack of direct effect – Inadmissible

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230, first para., EC; Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4(2), 5 and 6; Commission Decision 2006/613, Art. 1, second para., and Annexes 1, 2 and 3) (see paras 22-26)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4(5) and 6; Commission Decision 2006/613, Annex 1) (see paras 32-37)

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1), in so far as it declares the site designated as ‘Ramblas de Gergal, Tabernas y Sur de Sierra Alhamilla’, which includes land belonging to the applicant, to be a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 – SPM v Council and Commission

(Case T-128/05)

Non-contractual liability of the Community – Common organisation of the markets – Bananas – Rules for importing of bananas from ACP countries into the European Union – Lawful or unlawful conduct – Loss allegedly suffered by independent ACP producer

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 53-56)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 62-64)

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Discretion of the Community institutions – Scope – Judicial review – Limits (see paras 94, 114)

4. International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Community – Direct effect – Conditions – Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention (Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention on 15 December 1989, Art. 168 and Protocol No 5; ACP-EC Cotonou Agreement, Protocol No 5, Art. 1) (see paras 97-106, 119, 131)

5. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Bananas – System of importation (Council Regulation No 1637/98; Commission Regulation No 2362/98) (see paras 116, 146-159, 164-170, 178-182)

6. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints (Council Regulation No 856/1999; ACP-EC Cotonou Agreement, Protocol No 5, Art. 1) (see paras 132-133)

7. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Legal measure – Real damage, causal link and unusual and special damage – Cumulative nature (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 187-188)

Re:

ACTION for damages pursuant to Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, based, principally, on the unlawful conduct of the Council and the Commission in the establishment of the rules relating to the import of bananas into the Community and, alternatively, on the liability of the Community in the absence of unlawful conduct by those two institutions.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 24 September 2008 – HUP Uslugi Polska v OHIM – Manpower (I.T.@MANPOWER)

(Case T-248/05)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark ‘I.T.@MANPOWER’ – Absolute grounds for refusal – Distinctive character – Lack of descriptive character – No signs or indications which have become customary – Not a trade mark of such a nature as to deceive the public – Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d) and (g) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(b) to (d) and (g) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 43-45, 52-54, 60-63, 66-68)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 April 2005 (Case R 124/2004-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between MP Temporärpersonal GmbH and Manpower Inc.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark subject to an action for cancellation: Word mark I.T.@MANPOWER for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 – Community mark No 861559 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Manpower Inc. Party applying for cancellation: MP Temporärpersonal GmbH Basis of the application for cancellation: Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94, in connection with Article 7(1)(b) to (d) and (g) of that regulation Decision of the Cancellation Division: Action for cancellation dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;