ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 May 2011 – Tempus Vade v OHIM – Palacios Serrano (AIR FORCE)

(Case T-81/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark AIR FORCE – Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks TIME FORCE – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity of signs – Article 8(1)(b) and (5) 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 38, 40-43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2010 (Case R 1114/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Tempus Vade, SL and Mr. Juan Palacios Serrano.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Juan Palacios Serrano Community trade mark sought: Word mark AIR FORCE in respect of goods in Class 14 – Application No 5016704 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Tempus Vade, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark TIME FORCE (Application No 395657) in respect of goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25; and four other Community figurative marks which contain the word element TIME FORCE in respect of goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25 (Application No 398776) and in respect of goods in Classes 3, 8, 9, 14, 18, 25, 34, 35 and 37 (Application No 3112133) Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled; opposition dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 18 October 2011 – dm‑drogerie markt v OHIM – Semtee (caldea)

(Case T-304/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for registration of the Community figurative mark caldea – Earlier international word mark BALEA – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No 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 20, 28, 59, 65-66)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2010 (Case R 899/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between dm‑drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and Semtee.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), in addition to bearing its own costs;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 September 2011 – Telefónica O2 Germany v OHIM – Loopia (LOOPIA)

(Case T-150/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark LOOPIA – Earlier Community word marks LOOP and LOOPY – 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 30, 42-44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2010 (Case R 1812/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Telefónica O2 Germany GmbH & Co. OHG and Loopia AB.

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 12 January 2010 (Case R 1812/2008-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Telefónica O2 Germany GmbH & Co. OHG;

3. Orders OHIM to pay the costs necessarily incurred by Telefónica O2 Germany for the purposes of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal of OHIM;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 November 2011 – The Pukka Luggage Company v OHIM – Azpiroz Arruti (PUKKA)

(Case T-483/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark PUKKA – Opposition by the proprietor of Community and national figurative marks featuring the word element pukas – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Partial refusal to register

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 17, 54)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 July 2010 (Case R 1175/2008‑4), concerning opposition proceedings between Jesús Miguel Azpiroz Arruti and The Pukka Luggage Company Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 16 November 2011 – Chabou v OHIM – Chalou (CHABOU)

(Case T-323/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark CHABOU – Earlier national and international word marks Chalou – Refusal to register – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 12(a) 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 28-29, 54-56)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1165/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Chalou GmbH and Chickmouza Chabou.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
2.

Orders Almunia Textil, SA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and FIBA‑Europe eV including, in respect of the latter, the unavoidable costs incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2011 – Spain v Commission

(Case T-106/10)

EAGGF – Guidance Section – Reduction of financial aid – Community initiative programme Leader+ – Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 – Proportionality

1. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – European Union funding – Obligation on Member States to establish monitoring and control systems – Duty to keep records of the checks made – Scope (Council Regulation No 1260/1999; Commission Regulation No 438/2001, Art. 4) (see paras 33, 36, 39-40)

2. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – European Union funding – Decision to reduce financial aid by reason of irregularities – Financial consequences not quantifiable – Blanket correction – Breach of principle of proportionality – None (Council Regulation No 1260/1999, Art. 39(2)(c) and (3); Commission Regulation No 438/2001, Art. 4) (see paras 51-52, 61)

3. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – European Union funding – Decision to reduce financial aid by reason of irregularities – Obligations of the Commission – Duty to act within a reasonable time – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 1260/1999, Arts 38(1) and 39(2)) (see paras 65-67, 73-76)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10136 final of 18 December 2009 final applying financial corrections to the support from the Guidance Section of the EAGGF allocated to the Community initiative CCI 2000.ES.06.0.PC.003 (Spain — Leader+ Aragon).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2012 — Egan and Hackett v Parliament

(Case T‑190/10)

Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Registers of assistants to former members of the European Parliament — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Parliament’s reply to an initial application for access to documents — Failure of Parliament to inform the person concerned of the right to submit a confirmatory application — Exceptional admissibility of the action (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 7 and 8) (see paras 42-46)

2. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements (European Parliament and Council Regulation 1049/2001, Arts 7 and 8; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 49-52)

3. European Union — Institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of private life and the integrity of the individual — Scope of the exception — Documents having been accessible to the public but no longer accessible — Inclusion (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b)) (see paras 74-76)

4. European Union — Institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of private life and the integrity of the individual — Requirement that the institution should examine the documents specifically and individually — Duty to state reasons — Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b)) (see paras 88-101)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the European Parliament’s decision of 12 February 2010 in so far as it refuses to grant the applicants the access sought to the public registers of assistants to former members of the European Parliament.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 12 February 2010 in so far as it refuses to grant Kathleen Egan and Margaret Hackett the access requested to the public registers of assistants to former members of the European Parliament;

2. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs incurred by Mrs Egan and Mrs Hackett and to refund to the Court cashier the sums advanced by way of legal aid granted to Mrs Egan;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 March 2012 — ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v OHIM (Highprotect)

(Case T‑565/10)

Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Highprotect — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — 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 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 15-18)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2010 (Decision R 1038/2010‑1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark Highprotect as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2012 —

Tsakiris‑Mallas v OHIM — Seven (7 Seven Fashion Shoes)



(Case T‑244/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark 7 Seven Fashion Shoes — Earlier national figurative marks Seven and 7seven — Partial refusal to register — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — 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 30, 59-62))

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2012 (R 1045/2009 2) relating to opposition proceedings between Seven SpA and Tsakiris-Mallas AE.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 2012 —

Kraft Foods Schweiz v OHIM — Compañia Nacional de Chocolates (CORONA)



(Case T-357/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark CORONA — Earlier national word marks KARUNA and KARŪNA — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — 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 — Figurative mark CORONA — Word marks KARUNA and KARŪNA (see paras 23, 39, 43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2010 (Case R 696/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding GmbH and Compañia Nacional de Chocolates, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 — Sviluppo Globale v Commission

(Case T-183/10)

Public service contracts — Public procurement procedure — Supply of technical assistance to the Government of Syria — Rejection of the tender — Duty to state reasons

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision under public contract award procedure to reject a tender — Decision to inform the persons concerned of the justifications for the measure taken so as to enable them to assert their rights — Assessment of compliance with that obligation having regard to information available to the applicant at the time the action was brought (Art. 296 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41 and 47; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(2) and (3)) (see paras 16, 19-21, 35, 40, 41, 43)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 14 February 2010 not to accept the tender submitted by the consortium led by the applicant in the restricted procedure EuropeAid/129038/C/SER/SY for the supply to the Syrian Government of technical assistance services designed to facilitate decentralisation and local development (OJ 2009/S 223-319862).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 14 February 2010 not to accept the tender submitted by the consortium led by the applicant in the restricted procedure EuropeAid/129038/C/SER/SY for the supply to the Syrian Government of technical assistance services designed to facilitate decentralisation and local development (OJ 2009/S 223-319862);
60

Moreover, the Commission noted many links of complementarity between the unlawful practices in question thereby establishing the existence of the overall plan described in paragraph 59 above. There is objective evidence that that overall plan was implemented, consisting, in essence, in the fact that, first, the practices in question were put into effect by a sizeable and uniform group of undertakings (see recitals 796 and 797 to the contested decision, summarised in paragraph 41 above) active in two of the three product sub-groups (see recital 801 to the contested decision, summarised in paragraph 42 above) which were in the same business sector and were complementary (see recital 845 to the contested decision, summarised in paragraph 49 above). Second, the anti-competitive practices implemented by that central group of undertakings, within the framework of several umbrella associations and cross‑product associations, had the common object of increasing prices in relation to one or more of the three product sub-groups both annually and on the occasion of specific events (see recitals 810 to 813 to the contested decision, summarised in paragraph 45 above) and were perceived by the participants as requiring coordination so as to ensure that the price increases were accepted by their common customer base (see recital 813 to the contested decision, summarised in paragraph 42 above). Lastly, those unlawful practices were implemented using the same methods and at the same time (recitals 806 to 809 to the contested decision, summarised in paragraph 44 above) by, in some cases, the same employees who were responsible for their implementation with regard to several product sub-groups in several countries (see recitals 848 and 849 to the contested decision, summarised in paragraph 51 above).
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 17, 37

)
Keywords



Keywords

Own resources of the European Union — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Conditions for not taking account of import duties set out in Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code — Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b)) (see paras 26, 27, 36)

2. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 48, 49)

3. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import duties — Application of the fairness clause instituted by Article 239 of the Community Customs Code (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 220(2) and 239) (see paras 50‑52)

4. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import duties — Application of the fairness clause instituted by Article 239 of the Community Customs Code (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 220(2) and 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Arts 871 and 905) (see paras 53‑55)
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

19 June 2012

Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo and Others

v

European Investment Bank (EIB)

‛Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Pensions — Contribution to the pension scheme — Dismissal of the action at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — Period allowed for instituting proceedings — Delay — Reasonable period’

Appeal:

against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 4 February 2011 in Case F‑34/10 Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB [2010] ECR-SC, seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo and the 34 other members of the staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) whose names appear in the Annex are to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the EIB in these proceedings.

Summary
Under Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, the competent authorities may be regarded as having committed an error where they have not raised any objection to the tariff classification of the goods made by the trader in its customs declarations, if those declarations contained all the factual particulars needed in order to apply the relevant rules, so that any subsequent check carried out by the customs authorities could not disclose any new fact. That is the case in particular where all the customs declarations submitted by the trader have been complete, in that they gave, in particular, a description of the goods in accordance with the indications of the nomenclature beside the declared tariff heading and where the imports in question have been fairly numerous and have taken place over a relatively long period without the tariff heading having been challenged.

The said Article 220(2)(b), conferring a right to remission of import or export duties in the case of error by the customs authorities, also applies in situations in which the applicant is not the holder of or has not requested binding tariff information. The fact that the applicant has not requested binding tariff information for the products concerned does not mean, however, that the customs authorities have not committed an error.

(see paras 24, 25, 27)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2012 — Giordano v Commission

(Case T-114/11)

‛Non-contractual liability — Fisheries — Conservation of fisheries resources — Recovery of bluefin tuna stocks — Emergency measures prohibiting fishing by purse seiners — Unlawful conduct — Causal link’

1. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — No obligation on the court to examine in a given order (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 12, 13)

2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Actual and certain damage — Burden of proof (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 15)

3. Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea — System of fishing quotas — Concept — Theoretical limit of maximum catch — No guarantee that fishermen may fish the whole of the quota (Council Regulation No 2371/2002; Commission Regulation No 530/2008) (see para. 18)

Re:

ACTION for damages seeking compensation for the losses allegedly suffered following the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45 °W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Jean-François Giordano to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2012 — Giordano v Commission

(Case T-114/11)

‛Non-contractual liability — Fisheries — Conservation of fisheries resources — Recovery of bluefin tuna stocks — Emergency measures prohibiting fishing by purse seiners — Unlawful conduct — Causal link’

1. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — No obligation on the court to examine in a given order (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 12, 13)

2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Actual and certain damage — Burden of proof (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 15)

3. Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea — System of fishing quotas — Concept — Theoretical limit of maximum catch — No guarantee that fishermen may fish the whole of the quota (Council Regulation No 2371/2002; Commission Regulation No 530/2008) (see para. 18)

Re:

ACTION for damages seeking compensation for the losses allegedly suffered following the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45 °W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;