ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
4

By two decisions of 1 July 2008 (‘the contested decisions’), the Commission rejected the applicants’ requests for internal review. In each of the contested decisions, the Commission stated as follows: ‘Your request for internal review has been lodged on the basis of Title IV of Regulation … No 1367/2006. [That] Regulation … provides that a request for internal review shall comply with certain conditions, including the nature of the administrative act, which has to fall under the definition given in Article 2(l)(g) of the same Regulation. This article restricts the scope of administrative acts to “any measure of individual scope under environmental law, taken by a Community institution or body, and having legally binding and external effect”. In your letter, it is argued that Regulation … No 149/2008 is an administrative act subject to internal review. The Commission however cannot follow this interpretation. Regulation … No 149/2008 is based on Articles 5(1), 21(1) and 22(1) of Regulation … No 396/2005 and determines EU [MRLs] for pesticides applicable to all food business operators. Therefore, Regulation … No 149/2008 cannot be considered an act of individual scope nor, as it is claimed in your letter, a bundle of decisions. The Commission therefore considers your request for internal review of Regulation … No 149/2008 to be inadmissible. Should you not agree with the present reply, you may bring the matter before the Ombudsman or before the [General Court] if you have a complaint which falls within the conditions laid down in Articles 195 [EC] and 230 [EC] respectively.’
45

On the basis, inter alia, of those considerations, and after finding that trade between Member States was affected by the bilateral agreements at issue and that the conditions for the application of Article 81(3) EC and Article 53(3) of the EEA Agreement were not met, the Commission, without imposing a fine, decided as follows: ‘Article 1 The following [24] undertakings have infringed Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by using, in their reciprocal representation agreements, the membership restrictions which were contained in Article 11 [paragraph 2] of the model contract … or by de facto applying those membership restrictions: … Article 2 The following [17] undertakings have infringed Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by conferring, in their reciprocal representation agreements, exclusive rights as provided for in Article 1 [paragraphs 1 and 2] of the CISAC model contract: … Article 3 The following [24] undertakings have infringed Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by coordinating the territorial delineations in a way which limits a licence to the domestic territory of each collecting society: … Article 4 1. The undertakings listed in Articles 1 and 2 shall immediately bring to an end the infringements referred to in those Articles, in so far as they have not already done so, and shall communicate to the Commission all the measures they have taken for that purpose. 2. The undertakings listed in Article 3 shall, within 120 days of the date of notification of this Decision, bring to an end the infringement referred to in that Article and shall, within that period of time, communicate to the Commission all the measures they have taken for that purpose. In particular, the undertakings listed in Article 3 shall review bilaterally with each other undertaking listed in Article 3 the territorial delineation of their mandates for satellite, cable retransmission and internet use in each of their reciprocal representation agreements and shall provide the Commission with copies of the reviewed agreements. 3. The addressees of this Decision shall refrain from repeating any act or conduct described in Articles 1, 2 and 3, and from any act or conduct having the same, or similar, object or effect. …’
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Surrender, revocation and invalidity

–

Relative grounds of invalidity

–

Registration contrary to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 53(1)(a)) (see paras 19, 30

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Case R 1012/2008-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA and Sociedade Quinta do Portal SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>26

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sociedade Quinta do Portal SA 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

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 62, 66-67

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 November 2008 (Case R 867/2007‑4) concerning opposition proceedings between Biofarma SAS and Procaps, SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>7

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Procaps, SA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 27-33

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2009 (Case R 202/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of a shade of brown as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>13

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Fédération internationale des logis to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Death of a natural person or cessation of existence of a legal person addressee of a decision of a Community institution – Action for annulment capable of being pursued and right to bring an action capable of being exercised by successor to assets and liabilities (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 20-21)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – Decision upholding the opposition without taking into account all the grounds relied upon (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 23-25)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 43-44)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2009 (Case R 1346/2008‑1) relating to opposition proceedings between Free SAS and Eidikes Ekdoseis AE.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Michalakopoulou Ktimatiki Touristiki AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Free SAS in the proceedings before the Court.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 82-85)

2. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Determination of a minimal quantitative use threshold – Not included (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see para. 86)

3. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 50(1)(a)) (see paras 89-96)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2008 (Case R 1882/2007-4) concerning revocation proceedings between Mr Mo-Hwa Park and Mr Chong-Yun Bae.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Mo-Hwa Park 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Complex mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38, 41, 43-44)

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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Whether conceptual differences may neutralise visual or aural similarities – Conditions (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 61)

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 71-74)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2008 (Case R 1787/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Natura Selection, SL and XXXLutz Marken GmbH.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders XXXLutz Marken GmbH 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

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 55, 86, 88

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 February 2009 (Case R 1879/2007-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG and Yorma’s AG.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Yorma’s AG 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

–

Similarity of the marks concerned

–

Criteria for assessment

–

Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32-33

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 August 2009 (Case R 1356/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between CheapFlights International Ltd and Cheapflights Ltd.

Information relating to the case

>lt>10

Operative part

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 31 August 2009 (Case R 1356/2007-4);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders OHIM and Cheapflights Ltd to pay the costs including those incurred by CheapFlights International Ltd in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Mark consisting in the representation of one of the elements constituting the product – Distinctive character – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 40-41)

2. 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 28, 34-35, 54)

Subject of the case

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2009 (Case R 224/2007-4) concerning an international registration designating the European Community of a figurative mark representing a chevron with perforated border.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Re:

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deichmann SE to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a service (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 58, 69-73

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2009 (Case R 531/2009-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ReValue as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>14

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ReValue Immobilienberatung GmbH 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

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30-31

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2008 (Case R 825/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Mundipharma GmbH and Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mundipharma GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Time-limit and form of appeal – Payment of the application fee after the deadline (Commission Regulation No 2869/95, Art. 8(3)) (see paras 37-43)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Restitutio in integrum – Conditions – Vigilance required by the circumstances – Exceptional, and thus unforeseeable, events – Concept (Council Regulation No 207/09, Art. 81(1)) (see paras 53-54, 60-62)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2009 (Case R 771/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between British-American Tobacco Polska S.A. and Romuald Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg 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

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 February 2009 (Case R 80/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Polypipe Ltd and Poloplast GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Poloplast GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Polypipe Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
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

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 49

)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Goodyear Dunlop Tyres UK Ltd to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — Poslovni Sistem Mercator v OHIM – Mercator Multihull (MERCATOR STUDIOS)

(Case T-417/09)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MERCATOR STUDIOS — Earlier national and international figurative marks Mercator and Mercator Slovenska košarica — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No injury to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation 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, 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1031/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Poslovni Sistem Mercator d.d. and Mercator Multihull, Inc.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Poslovni Sistem Mercator d.d. to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — Poslovni Sistem Mercator v OHIM – Mercator Multihull (MERCATOR STUDIOS)

(Case T-417/09)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MERCATOR STUDIOS — Earlier national and international figurative marks Mercator and Mercator Slovenska košarica — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No injury to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation 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, 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1031/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Poslovni Sistem Mercator d.d. and Mercator Multihull, Inc.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24-25, 54, 69-74

)
A Member State which has granted or seeks to be allowed to grant aid under one of the exceptions provided for in the Treaty rules has a duty to cooperate with the Commission in the proceeding in which it takes part, pursuant to which it must in particular provide all the information necessary to enable the Commission to verify that the conditions for the derogation sought are fulfilled. The legality of a decision concerning State aid falls to be assessed in the light of the information available to the Commission at the time when the decision was adopted. It follows therefrom in particular that, since the concept of State aid must be applied to an objective situation appraised on the date on which the Commission takes its decision, it is the appraisals carried out on that date which must be taken into account in the conduct of the review. Thus, where there is no information to the contrary from interested parties, the Commission is empowered to take as its basis the factual elements it has at the time it adopts its final decision, even if they are incorrect, provided that the factual elements in question were the subject of an information injunction issued by the Commission to the Member State to provide it with the necessary information.

It is apparent from Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 88 EC, that, at the end of the formal investigation procedure into unlawful aid, the decision shall be taken by the Commission on the basis of the information available, in particular that supplied by the Member State in response to the Commission’s requests for information.

It follows from the principle of effectiveness of the administrative procedure that a Member State cannot for the first time at the judicial stage challenge the contents of factual observations made by an interested third party during the administrative procedure, when in fact the observations had been sent to it.

(see paras 52-53, 55)
Judicial review of the examination as to the existence of a threat of injury, as carried out by the EU institutions in an anti-dumping proceeding must be limited to verifying whether the procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts on which the contested choice is based have been accurately stated, and whether there have been manifest errors in the assessment of those facts or a misuse of powers, as that examination involves the assessment of complex economic questions. That limited judicial review does not mean that the EU judicature must refrain from reviewing the institutions’ interpretation of information of an economic nature. In particular, the Court must not only establish whether the evidence relied on is factually accurate, reliable and consistent but also ascertain whether that evidence contains all the information which must be taken into account in order to assess a complex situation and whether it is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it.

The Council thus makes a manifest error of assessment in holding that the Community industry is in a vulnerable situation, where the relevant economic data of the case are all positive, save for the development of the market share of the Community industry, and, on the whole, paint a picture of an industry in a situation of strength, not of fragility or vulnerability.

(see paras 53, 61, 66)