ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 29-31

)
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 30, 59-62)

)
In competition matters, an infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU may result not only from isolated agreements or concerted practices which fall to be penalised as separate infringements, but also from a series of acts or from continuous conduct, the components of which may therefore justifiably be considered to be constituent elements of a single infringement.

In that regard, so far as concerns the finding of a single infringement, it is for the Commission to establish that the agreements or concerted practices in issue, although they relate to distinct goods, services or territories, form part of an overall plan knowingly implemented by the undertakings in question with a view to achieving a single anti-competitive objective. Links of complementarity between agreements or concerted practices constitute objective indicia of an overall plan. The Commission is required to examine all the facts capable of establishing or of casting doubt on that overall plan.

The Commission does not err in law where it finds a single infringement on the basis of the finding of an overall plan pursued by the undertakings concerned with the sole objective of allowing manufacturers of three sub-groups of complementary products to coordinate, in the context of the same three-level distribution system, price rises which they invoice to the wholesalers who are common customers and who have significant negotiating strength.

The claim that the undertakings participating in the unlawful practices are not identical does nothing to cast doubt on that conclusion. Such identity does not constitute a condition for the existence of an infringement as such, but only one indicator among others which have to be taken into consideration by the Commission when determining whether there is an overall plan or separate infringements. Moreover, the fact that the undertakings concerned supply products belonging to separate markets does not preclude the existence of a single infringement; the finding of a single infringement by definition presupposes that the anti-competitive conduct in question relates to distinct goods or territories. Furthermore, the fact that the unlawful practices in question start on different dates, depending on the Member States and the product sub-groups concerned, does not affect a finding that there were many material, geographic and temporal overlaps between the unlawful practices concerning the products in issue.

(see paras 21-23, 29, 32, 59, 67, 79)
Case T‑320/10

(publication by extracts)

Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark CASTEL — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Admissibility — Absolute ground for refusal not put forward before the Board of Appeal — Examination of the facts by OHIM of its own motion — Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 13 September 2013

Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Invalidity proceedings concerning absolute grounds for refusal — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), 52, 55 and 76(1))

Under Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, when considering absolute grounds for refusal, examiners of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and, on appeal, the Boards of Appeal of OHIM are required to examine the facts of their own motion in order to determine whether the mark registration of which is sought comes within one of the grounds for refusal of registration laid down in Article 7 of that regulation. It follows that the competent bodies of OHIM may be led to base their decisions on facts which have not been put forward by the applicant for the mark. OHIM is required to examine of its own motion the relevant facts which may lead it to apply an absolute ground for refusal.

In invalidity proceedings, however, OHIM cannot be required to carry out afresh the examination which the Examiner conducted, of his own motion, of the relevant facts which could have led him to apply the absolute grounds for refusal. It follows from the provisions of Articles 52 and 55 of Regulation No 207/2009 that the Community trade mark is regarded as valid until it has been declared invalid by OHIM following invalidity proceedings. It therefore enjoys a presumption of validity, which is the logical consequence of the check carried out by OHIM in the examination of an application for registration.

By virtue of that presumption of validity, OHIM’s obligation, under Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, to examine of its own motion the relevant facts which may lead it to apply absolute grounds for refusal, is restricted to the examination of the application for a Community trade mark carried out by the Examiners of OHIM and, on appeal, by the Boards of Appeal during the procedure for registration of that mark. In invalidity proceedings, as the registered Community trade mark is presumed to be valid, it is for the person who has filed the application for a declaration of invalidity to invoke before OHIM the specific facts which call the validity of that trade mark into question.

(see paras 26-28)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM — Garmo (GAZI Hellim)

(Case T-535/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark GAZI Hellim — Prior collective Community word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 36-40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2010 (Case R 1497/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias and Garmo AG.

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 20 September 2010 (Case R 1497/2009-4);
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — Spain v Commission

(Cases T-178/10, T-263/10 and T-265/10)

‛Operational programmes of the Cohesion Fund and of the ERDF managed by Spain — Request for interim payment — Evidence suggesting significant deficiency in functioning of management and control systems — Measures interrupting the period for payment — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Audit strategy — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Decision to interrupt the period for settlement of an interim payment application — Measure constituting the final conclusion of a distinct special procedure — Included (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1083/2006) (see paras 8-11, 18)

2. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — EU financing — Obligation on Member States to establish monitoring and control systems — Evidence suggesting significant deficiency in the functioning of management and control systems — Report of a national or Community audit body containing that evidence — Existence — Measures interrupting the period for payment (Art. 317 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 91(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 1828/2006) (see paras 31-33)

3. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — EU financing — Obligation on Member States to establish monitoring and control systems — Audit of monitoring and control systems — Approval of audit strategies — Implementation of audit work made conditional on approval of audit strategies — Excluded (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 62(1)(a),(b), and (c)) (see paras 72-74)

4. Acts of the institutions — Choice of legal basis — Legislation forming part of EU law — Requirements of clarity and foreseeability — Express indication of the legal basis — Included (see paras 86-88)

5. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Specific assurances given by the authorities — Absence (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 62(1)(c), and (2)) (see paras 92, 94)

6. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — EU financing — Obligation on Member States to establish monitoring and control systems — Evidence suggesting significant deficiency in the functioning of management and control systems — Measures interrupting the period for payment — Interim measures — Breach of principle of proportionality — None (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Arts 72(2), and 91(1)) (see paras 99-100, 103, 106)

Re:

ACTIONS against the Commission decisions of 12 February 2010 (Case T-178/10), 8 April 2010 (Case T-263/10) and 15 April 2010 (Case T-265/10) informing the Spanish authorities of the interruption of the period for the settlement of certain requests for interim payment submitted by the Kingdom of Spain.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders that Cases T-178/10, T-263/10 and T-265/10 be joined for the purposes of judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;
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 — 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 42)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Panrico (BIMBO DOUGHNUTS)

(Case T-569/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS — Earlier national word mark DOGHNUTS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Application for alteration — Admissibility’

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 — Word marks BIMBO DOUGHNUTS and DOGHNUTS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 53, 97-100)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50-52, 55, 69, 90, 96)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 56, 77, 78)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2010 (Case R 838/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Panrico SA and Bimbo SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bimbo SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by OHIM;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-248/10)

‛Languages — Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators — Choice of second language from three languages — Regulation No 1/58 — Article 1d(1), Article 27, first paragraph, and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations — Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of non-discrimination’

1. Officials — Competitions — Holding of an open competition — Languages of participation in tests — Equal treatment — Requirement of specific linguistic knowledge — Statement of reasons — Justification in the light of the interests of the service — Observance of the principle of proportionality (Staff Regulations, Arts 1(d)(1) and (6), 27, first para., and 28(f); Annex III, Art. 1(1)(f); Council Regulation No 1, Art. 1) (see paras 29-41)

2. Actions brought by officials — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Annulment of a notice of open competition — Legitimate expectations of the selected candidates — Results of the competitions not called into question (Art. 266 TFEU; Staff Regulations, Art. 91) (see paras 45-51)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/177/10 — Administrators (AD 5), in the fields of European Public Administration, Law, Economics, Audit, and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) (OJ 2010 C 64A, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/177/10 — Administrators (AD 5), in the fields of European Public Administration, Law, Economics, Audit, and Information and Communication Technology (ICT);
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Reber v OHIM — Klusmeier (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart PREMIUM)

(Case T-530/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart PREMIUM — Earlier national figurative marks W. Amadeus Mozart — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 15(1), first subparagraph and second subparagraph (a), and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. 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 Council Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 27)

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 28-30)

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 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 31)

4. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Probative value of the evidence — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 42(2) and (3), and 78(1)(f); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(3)) (see para. 36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2010 (Case R 363/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG and Ms Anna Klusmeier.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Pioneer Hi-Bred International v Commission

(Case T‑164/10)

‛Approximation of laws — Deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms — Authorisation procedure for placing on the market — Failure by the Commission to submit a draft decision to the Council — Action for failure to act’

1. Actions for failure to act — Institution called upon to act — Position taken ending the inaction — Concept — Commission proposing to the Council a decision on measures to be taken pursuant to Article 5(4) of Decision 1999/468 — Proposal constituting a necessary preliminary to the final decision concerning the marketing of genetically modified maize — Included (Art. 265 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/18, Art. 18; Council Decision 1999/468, Art. 5) (see paras 26, 27, 30-32)

2. Actions for failure to act — Commission’s obligation to act — Submission by the Commission to the Council without delay of a proposal for a decision concerning measures to be taken pursuant to Article 5(4) of Decision 1999/468 — Failure — No justification — Failure to act (Art. 265 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/18, Art. 18; Council Decision 1999/468, Art. 5(4)) (see paras 37, 42, 47, 52, 53, 58, 71, 80 and op. part)

3. Acts of the institutions — Temporal application — Procedural rules — Directly applicable to disputes pending at the time of their entry into force (see para. 73)

Re:

APPLICATION for a declaration under Article 265 TFEU that, by failing to submit to the Council a draft of the measures to be taken in accordance with Article 5(4) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23) and by failing to take all other measures that may, depending on the development of the decision-making procedure, be necessary to ensure the adoption of the decision referred to in Article 18 of Directive 2001/18/EC of 12 March 2001 of the European Parliament and the Council on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1), the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of Directive 2001/18.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC by failing to submit to the Council a proposal relating to the measures to be taken pursuant to Article 5(4) of Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission — Extent of the burden of proof — Degree of precision required of the evidence used by the Commission — Body of evidence — Evidential obligations of undertakings challenging the reality or the duration of the infringement (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 38-48, 57, 66-70, 98-106)

2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Powers of the Commission — Finding of an infringement that has ceased — Legitimate interest in making the finding (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 7(1)) (see paras 111-120)

3. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Unlimited jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Scope (Arts 261 TFEU and 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 31) (see paras 121-125)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATIONS for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38589 — Heat Stabilisers), or, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Arkema France and CECA SA to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 September 2016 — Klein v Commission

(Case T‑309/10 RENV)

‛Non-contractual liability — Directive 93/42/EEC — Harmonised system for the safety and health protection of patients, users and, where appropriate, other persons, with regard to the use of medical devices — Article 8 — Notification of a decision prohibiting placing on the market — No position adopted by the Commission — Article 18 — Wrongful CE marking — Harm — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link’

1. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — No obligation on the court to examine in a given order — One of those conditions not met — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 38, 39, 84)

2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Discretion of the institution when adopting the measure — Need to be taken into consideration when examining liability (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 43-45)

3. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Application to the proceedings after reference back following an appeal (Rules of Procedure of the General Court; Arts 84(1), and 218) (see para. 46)

4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Definition — Notification of a decision prohibiting marketing — Not included (Art. 340, second para., TFEU; Directive 93/42, Art. 8(2)) (see paras 59, 67)

5. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Concept — Burden of proof (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 70, 71, 73, 81, 83)

Re:

APPLICATION on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of breach by the Commission of its obligations under Article 8 of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011 – DRV v OHIM – Austria Leasing (Austria Leasing Gesellschaft m.b.H. Mitglied der Raiffeisen-Bankengruppe Österreich)

(Case T-199/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark Austria Leasing Gesellschaft m.b.H. Mitglied der Raiffeisen-Bankengruppe Österreich – Earlier national figurative mark Raiffeisen – No likelihood of confusion – 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 23, 37, 42, 50, 63)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2010 (Case R 253/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Deutscher Raiffensenverband eV (DRV) and Austria Leasing GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;