ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Wine – Designation and presentation of wines – Regulations Nos 1493/1999 and 753/2002 (Council Regulation No 1493/1999; Commission Regulations Nos 753/2002 and 316/2004) (see paras 35-40)

2. Procedure – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2)) (see para. 64))

3. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Wine – Designation and presentation of wines – Regulations Nos 1493/1999 and 753/2002 (Council Regulation No 1493/1999, Annex VII B, para. 1(b)); Commission Regulation No 753/2002, Arts 23 and 24) (see para. 72)

4. International agreements – Conclusion – Directives addressed by the Council to the Commission with a view to concluding bilateral agreements (Art. 300(1) EC; Commission Regulations Nos 753/2002 and 316/2004) (see paras 74-78)

5. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Wine – Designation and presentation of wines – Regulations Nos 1493/1999 and 753/2002 (Council Regulation No 1493/1999; Commission Regulations Nos 753/2002 and 316/2004) (see paras 86-88)

6. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law (Art. 230 EC; Commission Regulation No 316/2004) (see paras 100-103)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ 2004 L 55, p. 16), in so far as it amends Articles 24, 36 and 37 of Commission Regulation No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 (OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1), concerning the protection of traditional names.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 21-23

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION by the Commission for an order that IAMA Consulting Srl reimburse the amount that the Commission unduly paid to it in the course of the performance of the Regis 22337 contract and the Refiag 23200 contracts, which are covered by the Community’s Esprit Programme.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders IAMA Consulting Srl to pay the Commission the sum of EUR 31 757 together with default interest of EUR 4.78530 per day from 16 May 2004 until payment of the final balance, relating to the Refiag contract, from which the sums paid to date by IAMA are to be deducted, and the sum of EUR 164 345, together with default interest of EUR 24.76432 per day from 16 May 2004 until payment of the final balance, relating to the Regis contract, from which the payments made by IAMA to date are to be deducted;

2. Orders IAMA Consulting to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the Commission;

3. Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 70

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 April 2004 (Joined Cases R 547/2003-1 and R 604/2003-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Jabones Pardo, SA and Quimi Romar, SL.

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 23 April 2004 (Joined Cases R 547/2003-1 and R 604/2003-1) in so far as it allowed the intervener’s appeal concerning ‘soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices’, falling within Class 3, and ‘sanitary preparations’, falling within Class 5, referred to in the Community trade mark application;

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay half of the costs incurred by Jabones Pardo, SA;

3. Orders Quimi Romar, SL to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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))

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))

Summary

1. Although, in the examination of the opposition brought by the proprietor of an earlier mark on the basis of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the distinctive character of the earlier mark must be taken into account when assessing the likelihood of confusion, it is only one factor among others involved in that assessment. Thus, even in a case involving an earlier mark of weak distinctive character, there may be a likelihood of confusion on account, in particular, of a similarity between the signs and between the goods or services covered.

The approach, according to which an earlier mark of weak distinctive character enjoys a reduced protection, would have the effect that the factor of the similarity of the marks would be disregarded in favour of the factor based on the distinctive character of the earlier mark, which would then be given undue importance. The result would be that where the earlier mark is only of weak distinctive character a likelihood of confusion would exist only where there was a complete reproduction of that mark by the mark applied for, whatever the degree of similarity between the marks in question. Such a result would not, however, be consistent with the very nature of the global assessment which the competent authorities are required to undertake by virtue of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

(see paras 56-57)

2. For the average Spanish consumer there is a likelihood of confusion, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, between the figurative sign Limoncello della Costiera Amalfitana shaker, the registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought for ‘Lemon liqueur from the Amalfi Coast’ in Class 33 under the Nice Agreement, and the word mark LIMONCHELO, registered earlier in Spain for ‘wines, spirits and liqueurs’ also in Class 33 under that agreement.

The relevant public retains only an imperfect picture of the marks at issue, such that their common component, the word ‘limoncello’ or ‘limonchelo’, creates a certain similarity between them, since the word ‘limoncello’ is likely to dominate the overall impression created by the mark applied for in the memory of the relevant public. The goods in question are, moreover, identical.

(see para. 58)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF (Art. 253 EC) (see para. 60)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 67-68, 73-74)

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes – Regulation No 2988/95 (Council Regulation No 2988/95, Arts 1, 2 and 7) (see paras 80-84)

4. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Challenge by the Member State concerned – Burden of proof – Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (see paras 95-96, 127, 136-137, 142)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2004/561/EC of 16 July 2004 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 2004 L 250, p. 21), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic in the sectors of animal subsidies and rural development.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Actions for annulment—Interest in bringing proceedings—Concept—Need for an actual and current interest—Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant—Interest having to subsist until the delivery of the court decision—Burden of proof on the applicant—Action brought against a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties—Expiry of anti-dumping duties during the proceedings

(Arts 263 TFEU and 266, first para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (2015), Art. 131(1); Council Regulation No 397/2004)

(see paras 45-60)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 15 March 2006 − Italy v Commission

(Case T-226/04)

Action for annulment – Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 – Common organisation of the market in wine – Protection of traditional names – Amendment of classification of certain additional traditional names – Use in labelling of wine originating in third countries – Procedural defect – Principle of proportionality – TRIPs Agreement

1. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Wine – Designation and presentation of wines – Regulations Nos 1493/1999 and 753/2002 (Council Regulation No 1493/1999; Commission Regulations Nos 753/2002 and 316/2004) (see paras 35-40)

2. Procedure – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2)) (see para. 64))

3. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Wine – Designation and presentation of wines – Regulations Nos 1493/1999 and 753/2002 (Council Regulation No 1493/1999, Annex VII B, para. 1(b)); Commission Regulation No 753/2002, Arts 23 and 24) (see para. 72)

4. International agreements – Conclusion – Directives addressed by the Council to the Commission with a view to concluding bilateral agreements (Art. 300(1) EC; Commission Regulations Nos 753/2002 and 316/2004) (see paras 74-78)

5. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Wine – Designation and presentation of wines – Regulations Nos 1493/1999 and 753/2002 (Council Regulation No 1493/1999; Commission Regulations Nos 753/2002 and 316/2004) (see paras 86-88)

6. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law (Art. 230 EC; Commission Regulation No 316/2004) (see paras 100-103)

Re:

APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ 2004 L 55, p. 16), in so far as it amends Articles 24, 36 and 37 of Commission Regulation No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 (OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1), concerning the protection of traditional names.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 8 August 2003 reducing the assistance of the European Social Fund (ESF) and, therefore, rejecting the application for payment of the balance of the assistance from the ESF, initially approved for operational program 87 03 01 P1.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2006 − Henkel v OHIM

(Case T-398/04)

Community trade mark – Figurative mark – Red and white rectangular tablet with an oval blue centre – Absolute ground for refusal – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Absence of distinctive character

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 37-39)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 August 2004 (Case R 771/1999-2), in relation to the registration of a figurative mark consisting of the representation of a rectangular tablet

Information relating to the case:

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Henkel KGaA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark consisting of a red and white rectangular dish-washer tablet with an oval blue centre for goods in Classes 1 (chemicals used in industry), 3 (soaps, etc.) and 21 (sponges, etc.) – Application No 941 971 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: – Mark or sign cited in opposition: – Decision of the Opposition Division: Refusal to register by the examiner Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 13 February 2007 – Ontex v OHIM – Curon Medical (CURON)

(Case T-353/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark CURON – Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark EURON – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 100)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2004 (Case R 22/2004-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Ontex NV and Curon Medical, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Curon Medical, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark CURON for goods in Classes 10, 41 and 42 – Application No 1934868 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ontex NV Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark EURON for goods in Classes 5, 10, 16, 24 and 25 – Community trade mark No 762351 Decision of the Opposition Division: Application for registration dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and reference back to the Opposition Division for a new decision





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 1 February 2007 – Commission v IAMA Consulting

(Case T-242/04)

Esprit Programme – Community financing – Counterclaim brought pursuant to an arbitration clause – Reimbursement of excessive amounts of aid paid by the Commission

Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 21-23)

Re:

APPLICATION by the Commission for an order that IAMA Consulting Srl reimburse the amount that the Commission unduly paid to it in the course of the performance of the Regis 22337 contract and the Refiag 23200 contracts, which are covered by the Community’s Esprit Programme.

Operative part

The Court:

Orders IAMA Consulting Srl to pay the Commission the sum of EUR 31 757 together with default interest of EUR 4.78530 per day from 16 May 2004 until payment of the final balance, relating to the Refiag contract, from which the sums paid to date by IAMA are to be deducted, and the sum of EUR 164 345, together with default interest of EUR 24.76432 per day from 16 May 2004 until payment of the final balance, relating to the Regis contract, from which the payments made by IAMA to date are to be deducted;

Orders IAMA Consulting to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the Commission;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 18 April 2007 – House of Donuts v OHIM – Panrico (House of donuts)

(Joined Cases T-333/04 and T-334/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Applications for Community figurative marks ‘House of donuts’ – Earlier national word marks ‘DONUT’ and earlier figurative marks ‘donuts’ – Relative ground for refusal – 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 57-59)

Re:

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

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: House of Donuts International Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark ‘House of donuts’ for goods and services in classes 30, 32 and 42 – Application No 474486 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Panrico, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word and figurative marks ‘DONUT’ and ‘donuts’ for goods and services in classes 30, 32 and 42 Decision by the Opposition Division: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 September 2007 – Commission v Trends

(Case T-449/04)

Arbitration clause – Second Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration – Contracts involving projects in the field of road transport informatics and telecommunications – Lack of supporting documents for part of the declared expenses – Termination of contracts – Expired contracts

1. Procedure – Time-limit for producing evidence (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 48(1) and 66(2)) (see paras 59, 65)

2. Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC; Council Decision Nos 87/516 and 88/416) (see paras 72-73, 75)

3. Procedure – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2)) (see para 112)

Re:

APPLICATION by the Commission under an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC seeking an order that Trends reimburse the Commission in the sum of EUR 195 435 plus contractual interest or, in the alternative, plus default interest.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses the interlocutory application;

3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs except for those arising from the interlocutory application;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 4 October 2007 – Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM – Capela & Irmãos (VOGUE)

(Case T-481/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for a Community word mark VOGUE – Earlier national word mark VOGUE Portugal – Facts raised for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Extent of the examination carried out by the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2)) (see paras 20-21)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal (OHIM) of 27 September 2004 (Case R 328/2003-2) concerning opposition proceedings between J. Capela & Irmãos, Lda and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark VOGUE for goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 25 and 41 – Application No 183756 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: J. Capela & Irmãos, Lda Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark VOGUE Portugal for goods in Class 25 and company name VOGUE – SAPATARIA Decision of the Opposition Division: Community trade mark refused for the goods and services in question 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 27 September 2004 (Case R 328/2003-2);
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2008 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-465/04)

Public service contracts – Community tendering procedure – Provision of computer and related services linked to the information systems of the Directorate‑General for Fisheries – Rejection of a submitted tender – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based

1. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Pleas seeking that directions be issued to an institution – Inadmissibility (Arts 230 EC and 233 EC) (see para. 35)

2. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see para. 45)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision, in the context of the tendering procedure for a public service contract, not to accept an offer (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149) (see paras 47-50, 54-55, 59, 76-80)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 15 September 2004 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in the tendering procedure relating to the provision of computer and related services linked to the information systems of the Directorate-General for Fisheries, and to award the contract to the successful tenderer.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the Commission’s decision to reject the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and to award the contract to the successful tenderer in the tendering procedure ‘FISH/2004/02’;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 13 November 2008 – Italy v Commission

(Case T-224/04)

EAGGF – ‘Guarantee’ Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Aid for the processing of tomatoes and production of olive oil

1. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Procedure (see paras 38-39)

2. Procedure – 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 (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 41)

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Grant of aid and premiums (Art. 10 EC; Council Regulations Nos 729/70, Art. 8(1), and No 1258/1999, Art 1; Commission Regulation No 504/97, Art. 15(1)) (see paras 51-55)

4. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules (see paras 56-58, 65, 98)

5. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Regulation prescribing specific control measures (see para. 93)

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2003/536/EC of 22 July 2003 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 2003 L 184, p. 42) to the extent that it excludes certain expenditure by the Italian Republic in the financial years 1999 to 2002.

Operative part

The Court:





1. Dismisses the action;