ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 20)

2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Concept — Burden of proof (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 21)

3. Actions for damages — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run — Meeting of conditions for implementing non-contractual liability — Account taken of subjective assessment of the reality of the damage — Not permissible (Art. 340, second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53, first para.) (see paras 22-24)

4. European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Regulation No 1073/1999 concerning investigations conducted by OLAF — Detailed rules for internal investigations adopted by the EU institutions — System adopted by the Court of Auditors — Transmission to OLAF of information gathered in an investigation — Right of the person concerned to be heard — None — Infringement of the rights of the defence — None (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1073/1999, Art. 7; Court of Auditors Decision 99/50, Art. 4) (see paras 30, 31, 40)

5. Court of Auditors — Obligation of members — Infringement — Transmission to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of information gathered in an investigation — Information sent by OLAF to the judicial authorities — Competence of those authorities to assess those accusations in relation to criminal law — Judgment acquitting the persons concerned of all accusations — Court of Auditors not referring the matter to the Court of Justice — No implication that the Court of Auditors took a position on the relevance of the facts (Art. 247(7) EC) (see paras 40, 45-47)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of irregularities and infringements of EU law that the Court of Auditors allegedly committed in the context of an internal investigation.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Kalliopi Nikolaou to pay the costs.
As regards infringement of the principle of personal liability, if the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary can be imputed to its parent company, those companies may be regarded, during the period of the infringement, as forming a single economic unit and thus a single undertaking for the purposes of EU competition law. In those circumstances, the Commission will be entitled to hold the parent company jointly and severally liable for the unlawful conduct of its subsidiary during that period and, as a consequence, for payment of the amount of the fine imposed on the subsidiary.

Moreover, in determining joint and several liability from its external perspective, namely the liability imposed by the Commission on the various persons comprising the undertaking who may be required to pay the whole of the amount of the fine imposed on the undertaking, the Commission is subject to certain restrictions, inter alia, adherence to the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and the offence, which requires, in accordance with Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003, that the amount of the fine to be paid jointly and severally must be determined by reference to the gravity of the infringement for which the undertaking concerned is held individually responsible and the duration of the infringement.

A definition of joint and several liability permitting the Commission to require one of the parent companies to pay a fine punishing infringements for another part of the infringement period, for which an undertaking of which it has never formed part is responsible, is at odds with the principle that the penalty must be specific to the offender and the offence.

More specifically, a company cannot be held to be responsible for infringements committed independently by its subsidiaries before the date of their acquisition, since the latter must themselves answer for their unlawful conduct prior to that acquisition, and the company which has acquired them cannot be held to be responsible.

Consequently, the Commission errs in law where, contrary to the principle of personal liability, it applies an increase of 30% to the amount of the fine jointly and severally payable by the parent company, on the basis of the aggravating circumstance of the role of leader played by its subsidiary during a period in which the two companies were not yet linked.

(see paras 141-144, 154)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2010 – Herhof v OHIM – Stabilator (stabilator)

(Case T-60/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for community figurative mark stabilator – Earlier Community word mark STABILAT – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity of goods and services – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 51)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2008 (Cases R 483/2008-4 and R 705/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH and Stabilator sp. z o.o.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Stabilator sp. z o.o. Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark stabilator for goods and services in Classes 19, 37 and 42 – Application No 4068961 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark STABILAT for goods in Classes 1, 7, 11, 20, 37, 40 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part and application for registration rejected in part Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision dismissed in part and opposition dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 April 2010 – Schunk v OHIM (Presentation of part of a chuck)

(Case T-7/09)

Community trade mark – Application for a Community trade mark in the form of a presentation of part of a chuck with three grooves – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Lack of distinctive character acquired by use – Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2008 (Case R 1109/2007-1) concerning the registration of the sign in the form of a presentation of part of a chuck with three grooves as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Schunk GmbH & Co. KG Spann- und Greiftechnik Community trade mark sought: Mark showing the cylinder-shaped section of a chuck for goods in Classes 7 and 8 – Application No 3098894 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 (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2010 – PVS v OHIM – MeDiTa Medizinische Kurierdienst (medidata)

(Case T-270/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark medidata – Earlier national word mark MeDiTA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Similarity of the services – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30-31, 54-55)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 May 2009 (Case R 1724/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between MeDiTA Medizinische Kurierdienst- und Handelsgesellschaft mbH and PVS – Privatärztliche Verrechnungsstelle Rhein-Ruhr GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: PVS – Privatärztliche Verrechnungsstelle Rhein-Ruhr GmbH Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark medidata in the colours blue, grey and white for services in Classes 35, 36, 41, 42 and 44 – Application No 4495842 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: MeDiTA Medizinische Kurierdienst- und Handelsgesellschaft mbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark MeDiTA for services in Classes 35 and 39, whereas the opposition is directed against registration in Class 35 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 – Ilink Kommunikationssysteme v OHIM (ilink)

(Case T-161/09)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark ilink – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive 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 27, 36-37, 48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 February 2009 (Case R 1849/2007-4), relating to registration of the word sign ‘ilink’ as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Ilink Kommunikationssysteme GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark ilink for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 38 and 42 – Application No 5120911 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused in part Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 February 2011 – Oyster Cosmetics v OHIM – Kadabell (Oyster cosmetics)

(Case T-437/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark Oyster cosmetics – Earlier Community figurative mark Kadus oystra AUTO STOP PROTECTION – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of 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 23, 51, 55)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2009 (Case R 1367/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Kadabell GmbH & Co. KG and Oyster Cosmetics SpA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Oyster Cosmetics SpA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Oyster cosmetics for goods in Class 3 – Application No 3791555 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Kadabell GmbH & Co. KG Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration of the figurative mark Kadus oystra AUTO STOP PROTECTION for goods in Class 3 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 April 2011 – Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-70/09)

ERDF – Single programming document for the Groningen-Drenthe region – Decision on the reduction of aid and ordering partial reimbursement of the amounts paid – Duty to state reasons – Article 23(1) and Article 24(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88

1. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons – Plea distinct from that of the lawfulness of the contested decision (Arts 230 EC and 253 EC) (see para. 31)

2. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Breach of the prescribed conditions – Obligation of Member States to recover funds lost following abuse or negligence – Application of national law – Limits – Effectiveness of Community law (Art. 211 EC; Council Regulations Nos 2052/88, Art. 4(1), and 4253/88, Arts 23 and 24; Commission Regulation No 1681/94, Art. 5(2)) (see paras 47-49)

3. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Obligation of Member States to monitor on a regular basis the actions financed – Competence of the Commission to find defects in the management and monitoring system at national level (Art. 274 EC; Council Regulation No 4253/88, Arts 23(1) and 24) (see paras 55-56, 58)

Re:

ACTION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 8355 of 11 December 2008 on the reduction of the aid from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) within the framework of the single programming document No 97.07.13.003 coming under objective 2 for the Groningen-Drenthe region, granted in accordance with Commission Decision 97/711/EC of 26 May 1997.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 April 2011 – Gruber v OHIM (Run the globe)

(Case T-12/09)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark Run the globe – Absolute ground 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)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 24-27)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2008 (Case R 1779/2007-1) concerning a request for registration of the word sign Run the globe as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Alexander Gruber Community trade mark sought: Word mark Run the globe for services in Class 41 – Application No 5154521 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 (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2011 – ATB Norte v OHIM – Bricocenter Italia (Affiliato BRICO CENTER)

(Case T-483/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark Affiliato BRICO CENTER – Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro – Relative ground for refusal – 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 25, 33-34, 57, 66-67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2009 (Case R 1048/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bricocenter Italia, Srl Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Affiliato BRICO CENTER in respect of services in Class 35 – Application No 4939344 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro (No 989046) and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro (No 3262623) in respect of services in Classes 35, 37 and 39 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled and opposition dismissed in its entirety





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 28 September 2009 (Case R 1048/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2011 – Glenton España v OHIM – Polo/Lauren (POLO SANTA MARIA)

(Case T-376/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark POLO SANTA MARIA – Earlier Benelux figurative mark showing the silhouette of a polo player – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24-25, 34)

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 59)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Case R 594/2008-2) in relation to opposition proceedings between The Polo/Lauren Company, LP, and Glenton España, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Glenton España, SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark POLO SANTA MARIA for goods and services in Classes 18, 25, 36, 41 and 43 – Application No 3976776 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The Polo/Lauren Company, LP Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux trade mark registration of the figurative mark device of a silhouette of a polo player for goods in Classes 18 and 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in respect of all the goods in dispute Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled in part





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2011 – PAKI Logistics v OHIM (PAKI)

(Case T-526/09)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark PAKI – Absolute ground for refusal – Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality – Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(f)) (see paras 33-34, 37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2009 (Case R 1805/2007-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign PAKI as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders PAKI Logistics GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2011 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-298/09)

Public service contracts – Community tendering procedure – Supply of external services for educational programmes – Award of the contract to several tenderers – Tenderer’s ranking – Action for annulment – Duty to state reasons – Grounds for exclusion from the contract award procedure – Article 93(1)(f) of the Financial Regulation – Tender validity period – Non-contractual liability

1. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision to give no further consideration to a tenderer in the award procedure for a public service contract – Assessment having regard to information at the applicant’s disposal at the time the action was brought – No infringement of the duty to state reasons (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(2) and (3)) (see paras 27-31, 54)

2. European Union public contracts – Tender procedure – Award of contracts – Principle of equal treatment of tenderers – Scope (Art. 18 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 89(1)) (see para. 73)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of those conditions lacking – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 100-103)

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for annulment of two Commission decisions, communicated in two separate letters of 12 May 2009 ranking the applicant, for its tenders in response to the open call for tenders EAC/01/2008 for external service provision for educational programmes (ESP-ISEP) (OJ 2008/S 158-212752), for Lot No 1 (IS (information system) Development and Maintenance) and for Lot No 2 (IS (information system) Studies, Testing, Training and Support), as second contractor for each of those lots and, secondly, for damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2011 – Goodyear Dunlop Tyres UK v OHIM – Sportfive (QUALIFIER)

(Case T-424/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark QUALIFIER – Earlier Community word mark Qualifiers 2006 – Refusal to register – Relative ground for refusal – 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 26, 49)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 August 2009 (Case R 1291/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sportfive GmbH & Co. KG and Goodyear Dunlop Tyres UK Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 – McLoughney v OHIM – Kern (Powerball)

(Case T-484/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark Powerball – Earlier unregistered word mark POWERBALL – Relative grounds for refusal – Article 8(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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 General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 18-19)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2009 (Case R 1547/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Rory McLoughney and Mr Ernst Kern.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;