ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26 November 2008 – Avon Products v OHIM (ANEW ALTERNATIVE)

(Case T-184/07)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark ANEW ALTERNATIVE – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 26, 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2007 (Case R 1471/2006-2), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word mark ANEW ALTERNATIVE.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Avon Products, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark ANEW ALTERNATIVE for goods in Class 3 – Application No 4357919 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 Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 17 June 2009 – Portugal v Commission

(Case T-50/07)

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Arable crops – Durum wheat – Period of 24 months – First communication referred to in Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 – On-the-spot checks – Remote sensing – Effectiveness of checks – Results of checks – Corrective action to be taken by the Member State concerned – Existence of financial harm to the EAGGF

1. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Council Regulations Nos 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c), and 1258/1999, Art. 7(4), fifth para.; Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8(1), first, second and fourth subparas) (see paras 27-30, 32-34, 74-77, 84-87, 95-97)

2. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing (Commission Regulation No 3887/92, Art. 6(1)) (see paras 101-102)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 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 2006 L 355, p. 96), in so far as it excludes from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic in the sector of arable crops (durum wheat).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as that decision excludes in respect of the Portuguese Republic certain expenditure incurred in the sector of arable crops (durum wheat) during the marketing year 2003;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 15 September 2009 – Royal Appliance International v OHIM – BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (Centrixx)

(Case T-446/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community word mark Centrixx – Earlier national word mark sensixx – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – 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 25-33, 59-64)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 (Case R 572/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH and Royal Appliance International GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Royal Appliance International GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark ‘Centrixx’ for goods in Class 7 – Application No 3016227 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘sensixx’ for goods in Class 7 – Registration No 30244090 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and refusal of the application for registration of the mark





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2009 – Laboratorios Del Dr. Esteve v OHIM – Ester C (ESTER-E)

(Case T-230/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark ESTER-E – Earlier Community figurative mark ESTEVE – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – 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 39, 41, 46, 48, 56, 60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 April 2007 (Case R 737/2006‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Del Dr. Esteve, SA and The Ester C Company.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The Ester C Company Community trade mark sought: The Community word mark ‘ESTER-E’ for goods and services in Classes 3 and 5 – Application No 3163946 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Laboratorios Del Dr. Esteve, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Community figurative mark ‘ESTEVE’ for goods in Classes 1, 5 and 42 and the national figurative marks ‘ESTEVE’ and ‘ESTEVE-Laboratorio Del Dr. Esteve S.A.’ for goods in Class 5 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Laboratorios Del Dr. Esteve, SA to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 – Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (350, 250 and 150)

(Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07)

Community trade mark – Applications for Community word marks 350, 250 and 150 – Absolute grounds 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 25-31)

Re:

Three actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 December 2006 (Cases R 1033/2006-4, R 1034/2006-4 and R 1035/2006-4) concerning applications for registration of word marks 350, 250 and 150 as Community trade marks.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. Community trade mark sought: Word marks 350, 250 and 150 for goods in Class 16 Decision of the Examiner: Registrations refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeals dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 29 September 2009 – Thomson Sales Europe v Commission

(Joined Cases T-225/07 and T-364/07)

Customs union – Imports of colour television receivers manufactured in Thailand – Refund of import duties – Manifest negligence – Post-clearance recovery of import duties – Action for annulment – Act having adverse effects – Inadmissibility

1. Own resources of the European Communities – Repayment or remission of import duties (Council Regulations Nos 2913/92, Art. 239, 2584/98, 710/95 and 1531/2002; Commission Regulations Nos 2454/93, Art. 905 and Annex 11, and 2376/94) (see paras 66-68, 72-132, 137-154)

2. Procedure – Measures of inquiry (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 64(3)(d); Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 905) (see paras 163-169)

3. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b); Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Arts 873, 874 and 876) (see paras 177-188)

4. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature (Arts 7 EC and 225 EC) (see paras 218-222)

Re:

APPLICATION for, in Case T‑225/07, annulment of Commission Decision REM 03/05 of 7 May 2007 stating to the French authorities that the refund of import duties is not justified on the importation of colour television receivers manufactured in Thailand covered by their application of 14 September 2005 and, in Case T‑364/07, annulment of the letter of the Commission of 20 July 2007 not confirming acquisition of the entitlement to post-clearance recovery of import duties on those items.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 – Notartel v OHIM – SAT.1 (R.U.N.)

(Case T-490/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark R.U.N. – Earlier Community and national word marks ‘ran’ – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Obligation to state reasons – Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) – Partial refusal of registration)

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 52, 71)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 October 2007 (Case R 1267/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH and Notartel SpA – Società informatica del Notariato.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Notartel SpA – Sociétà informatica del Notariato Community trade mark sought: Word mark R.U.N. for services in Classes 35, 38 and 42 – Application No 1069863 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national word mark ran, for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed in part, in respect of some services in Classes 38 and 42





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2010 – Martin v Parliament

(Case T-276/07)

Rules concerning expenses and allowances for Members of the European Parliament – Recovery of sums wrongly paid

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – 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 para. 58)

2. Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Need for an actual and current interest – Action against decisions not yet adopted at the time when the action was brought – Inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 61-63)

3. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Subject-matter of the dispute – Delimitation – Alteration once proceedings have been started – Prohibition (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1) and 48(2)) (see para. 65)

4. European Parliament – Regulation governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Parliamentary assistance allowance – Liability of the Member of the European Parliament making the request vis-à-vis that institution – Paying agent to manage amounts paid – No effect (see paras 95-96)

5. European Parliament – Regulation governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Parliamentary assistance allowance – Paying agent to manage amounts paid – No documents evidencing use in accordance with rules – Obligation to repay – (see paras 100, 108)

6. European Parliament – Regulation governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Recovery of sums unduly paid – Unconditional obligation (see para. 114)

7. Community law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Documents which were not the subject of comment by the person concerned – Exclusion as evidence – Limits (see paras 125, 127, 130)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 10 May 2007 and, if necessary, the debit note of the Director-General for Finance of the Parliament, taken pursuant to the decision of 10 May 2007, and, where applicable, any decision implementing the aforementioned measures which might arise in the course of the proceedings.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2011 – Tegebauer v Parliament

(Case T-308/07)

Right to petition – Petition addressed to the Parliament – Decision to take no action – Action for annulment – Actionable measure – Admissibility – Obligation to state reasons

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Reference to the annex in support of arguments set out in the pleadings – Admissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 18-20)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the Parliament to take no action on a petition – Included (Arts 194 EC and 230EC) (see para. 21)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the Parliament to take no action on a petition (Art. 194 EC; European Parliament Regulation, Art. 191(6)) (see paras 23-30)

Re:

ANNULMENT of the Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 20 June 2007 to file and take no further action on the petition submitted by the applicant on 7 February 2007 (Petition No 95/2007).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 20 June 2007 to file and take no further action on the petition submitted by Mr Ingo-Jens Tegebauer on 7 February 2007 (Petition No 95/2007);
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 18 January 2012 – Djebel – SGPS v Commission

(Case T-422/07)

State aid – Aid scheme designed to promote modern and competitive entrepreneurial strategies – Planned aid for a commercial company in the form of a soft loan in order to help finance an investment by that company in Brazil – Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the common market – Duty to state reasons – Impairment of competition – Effect on trade between Member States – Equal treatment

1. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution – Claim for a declaratory judgment – Inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 50)

2. State aid – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – Duty to state reasons – Scope – Decision in line with previous decisions – Summary reasoning – Decision going well beyond previous decisions – Express reasoning (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 52-54, 57-58, 70)

3. State aid – Effect on trade between Member States – Adverse effect on competition – Criteria for assessment – Small size and limited extent of aid not a priori excluding the possibility of trade being affected (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 81-85, 88-90, 97, 100)

4. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Discretion of the Commission – Judicial review (Art. 87(3) EC) (see paras 107-108)

5. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Aid eligible for the derogation laid down in Article 87(3)(c) EC – Aid not needed or having an incentive effect – Exclusion (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see paras 118-124)

6. State aid – General aid scheme approved by the Commission – Approval subject to a reservation requiring individual notification of certain aids – Examination of such a notified aid having regard only to the rules of the Treaty (see paras 144, 147-149)

7. State aid – Concept – Assessment according to the criterion of the private investor – Capital contribution (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 157-158)

8. State aid – Commission decision – Assessment of legality by reference to the information available at the time of adoption of the decision – Foreseeable development of competition to be taken into account (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 168-170)

9. State aid – Administrative procedure – Obligations of the Commission – Duty to act within a reasonable time – Criteria for assessment – Infringement – Consequences – Annulment of the decision where defence rights infringed (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 174-176)

10. Union law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Possibility of the Commission taking account of the development of the common market in relation to a previous decision – No breach of the principle of equal treatment (see paras 199-200, 202-203)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/582/EC of 10 May 2007 on State aid C 4/2006 (ex N 180/2005) – Portugal – Aid to Djebel (OJ 2007 L 219, p. 30).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — ERNI Electronics v OHIM (MaxiBridge)

(Case T-132/08)

‛Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark MaxiBridge — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness of the function of the goods indicated in the trade mark application — 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 34, 47-50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2008 (Case R 1530/2006-4) regarding the registration of the word sign MaxiBridge as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: ERNI Electronics GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark ‘MaxiBridge’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 17 — Application No 4899647 Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3) (see paras 17, 21-25, 38-40

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2007 (Case R 530/2007-1) concerning an application to register as a Community trade mark a three‑dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a seashell.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders G.M. Piccoli Srl to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 — JOOP! v OHIM (Representation of an exclamation mark in a rectangle)

(Case T-191/08)

‛Community trade mark — Application for registration of a figurative Community trade mark representing an exclamation mark in a rectangle — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(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 — Exception — Acquisition of distinctive character through use (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3)) (see paras 25-30, 42-47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2008 (Case R 1822/2007-1) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: JOOP! GmbH Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark representing an exclamation mark in a rectangle, for goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25 — Application No 5332176 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 Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 8 July 2009 — Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel v OHIM — Schwarzbräu (Alaska)

(Case T-226/08)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Alaska — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of 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 — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds of invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 22, 36, 38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2008 (Case R 1124/2004-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH and Schwarzbräu GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark Alaska for goods in Class 32 — Community trade mark No 505503 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Schwarzbräu GmbH Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned granted in part Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);