ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 15-17)

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 — Word marks KMIX and BAMIX (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18-21, 24-34, 38-42)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23, 27)

4. 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 — Weighting of the elements of similarity or difference between the signs — Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the marketing conditions of the goods or services — Clothing sector (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 37)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2010 (Case R 1249/2009-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Esge AG and Kenwood Appliances Luxembourg SA.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Esge AG to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2013 — Vivendi v Commission

(Case T-432/10)

‛Competition — Abuse of dominant position — French broadband and telephone subscription market — Decision rejecting a complaint — Lack of Community interest — Significance of the alleged infringement as regards the functioning of the internal market — Probability of establishing the existence of the alleged infringement’

1. Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Taking into account the Community interest in investigating a case — Criteria for assessment — Discretion of the Commission — Duty to state reasons for a decision to take no further action — Judicial review (Arts 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU, 105(1) TFEU and 296 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Art. 7(1)) (see paras 22-25, 27, 28, 33, 39, 68, 104-107, 126, 127)

2. Competition — Division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the General Court — Right of the Commission to take into account its own surveillance carried out in the context of another procedure and the measures undertaken by the national authorities (Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 4 and 5) (see paras 26, 44-47, 62, 76)

3. Actions for annulment — Commission decision involving appraisal of a complex economic matter — Judicial review — Limits (Arts 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see para. 66-70)

4. Competition — Dominant position — Abuse — Margin squeeze — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Art. 102 TFEU) (see paras 109-114)

5. Competition — Administrative procedure — Rights of complainants — Access to documents — Scope (Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Arts 7(1), and 8(1)) (see paras 132, 133, 138, 139)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4730 of 2 July 2010, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against France Télécom relating to an alleged abuse of a dominant position on the French broadband and telephone subscription market (Case COMP/C-1/39.653 — Vivendi & Iliad/France Télécom).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders Vivendi to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;
1.

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19, 49)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision ordering a bank guarantee to be constituted in order to accede to the request for payment of the fine by instalments, in the context of competition law (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 42-44)

2. Union law — Principles — Proportionality — Scope — Discretion of the EU legislature — Judicial review — Limits (see paras 55, 56)

3. Competition — Fines — Discretion of the Commission — Scope — Power to fix the methods of payment of the fines — Requirement of a bank guarantee from a bank with a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating — Judicial review — Limits (Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 85) (see paras 58-63, 65, 66)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment in part of the decision allegedly set out in the letter from the Commission’s accounting officer of 8 October 2010 concerning payment of the fine imposed on the applicants under Commission Decision C(2010) 5004 final of 20 July 2010 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.886 — Animal feed phosphates), in so far as that letter requires the applicants to provide a bank guarantee from a bank that has received a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating in order for the application to pay in instalments to be granted.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Quimitécnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA and José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA to bear their own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.
Where a fine is imposed by the Commission for infringement of the competition rules without the undertaking concerned having been heard and without it having had access to the file, the decision must be annulled in so far as the said undertaking has adequately demonstrated not that, without those procedural errors, the contested decision would have been different in content, but rather that it would have been better able to ensure its defence had there been no such errors, which is to be determined by reference to the time of the administrative procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision.

In that regard, in the context of a Commission decision jointly and severally ordering several companies, constituting a single undertaking for the purposes of Article 101 TFEU, to pay a fine, the parent company concerned may challenge the fact that it did not benefit from a reduction granted, by a second decision, adopted without hearing it or giving it access to the file, to one of the subsidiaries jointly and severally liable. In such circumstances, the parent company concerned may better ensure its defence by raising the question what the Commission’s obligations were as to the determination of the respective shares of the various companies in the amounts for which they were held jointly and severally liable, that question not having been resolved by the case-law at the time of the administrative procedure.

Moreover, if the fine imposed on the said parent company proves higher than the fine imposed on its subsidiaries, whereas its liability is entirely derived from the liability of the latter, it may challenge the amount of the fine envisaged in its regard.

(see paras 72-74, 76, 80, 83)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 July 2015 —

France v Commission

(Case T‑516/10)

‛EAGGF — ‘Guidance’ Section — Reduction of financial aid — Community initiative programme Leader+ — Failure to comply with the time-limit for adoption of a decision — Infringement of an essential procedural requirement’

1. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Non-compliance with a time-limit imposed by the EU legislature — To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 26)

2. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — EU financing — Suspension or reduction of financial assistance following irregularities — Time-limit for adoption of the Commission’s decision — Point from which time starts to run (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Arts 100(5), and 108, second para.) (see paras 27, 28, 31, 32)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 5724 final of 23 August 2010 on the application of financial corrections to assistance from the EAGGF, ‘guidance’ section, allocated to the Community initiative programme CCI 2000.FR.060.PC.001 (France — Leader+).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 5724 final of 23 August 2010 on the application of financial corrections to assistance from the EAGGF, ‘guidance’ section, allocated to the Community initiative programme CCI 2000.FR.060.PC.001 (France — Leader+);

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the French Republic.

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 July 2015 —

France v Commission

(Case T‑516/10)

‛EAGGF — ‘Guidance’ Section — Reduction of financial aid — Community initiative programme Leader+ — Failure to comply with the time-limit for adoption of a decision — Infringement of an essential procedural requirement’

1. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Non-compliance with a time-limit imposed by the EU legislature — To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 26)

2. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — EU financing — Suspension or reduction of financial assistance following irregularities — Time-limit for adoption of the Commission’s decision — Point from which time starts to run (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Arts 100(5), and 108, second para.) (see paras 27, 28, 31, 32)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 5724 final of 23 August 2010 on the application of financial corrections to assistance from the EAGGF, ‘guidance’ section, allocated to the Community initiative programme CCI 2000.FR.060.PC.001 (France — Leader+).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 5724 final of 23 August 2010 on the application of financial corrections to assistance from the EAGGF, ‘guidance’ section, allocated to the Community initiative programme CCI 2000.FR.060.PC.001 (France — Leader+);
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 – CheckMobile v OHIM (carcheck)

(Case T-14/10)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark carcheck – Absolute ground 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 19-20, 25-26, 28)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2009 (Case R 595/2009-4), relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign carcheck.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: CheckMobile GmbH – The Process Solution Company Community trade mark sought: Word mark car check for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 45 – Application No 7368681 Decision of the examiner: Partial refusal of registration Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the Examiner’s Decision





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 26 September 2017 – Quimitécnica.com and de Mello v Commission

(Case T-564/10 RENV)

(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for animal feed phosphates — Fine imposed jointly and severally following a settlement procedure — Payment in instalments — Decision requiring the provision of a bank guarantee from a bank with a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality)

1. Action for annulment–Actionable measures–Concept–Commission decision requiring the provision of a bank guarantee in order for the application to pay in instalments to be granted, in the context of competition law–Included (Art. 263 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 85 and 86(5)) (see paras 42-47)

2. Action for annulment–Interest in bringing proceedings–Condition–Action capable of procuring a benefit for the party bringing it–Scope–Commission decision imposing a fine for breach of the competition rules–Action brought by the undertaking on which the fine was imposed challenging the calculation of an interest rate in the case of payment by instalments–Payment of interest at the increased rate already applied–Admissibility (Arts 101 TFEU and 263 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 85 and 86(5)) (see para. 48)

3. Acts of the institutions–Statement of reasons–Obligation–Scope–Commission decision requiring the provision of a bank guarantee in order for the application to pay in instalments to be granted, in the context of competition law (Art. 296 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 85) (see paras 59-66)

4. Competition–Fines–Discretion of the Commission–Scope–Power to fix the methods of payment of the fines–Requirement of the provision of a bank guarantee from a bank with a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating–Breach of principle of proportionality–None (Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 85) (see paras 73-84)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of the decision allegedly set out in the letter from the Commission’s accounting officer of 8 October 2010 concerning payment of the fines imposed on the applicants for infringement of competition rules by Commission Decision C(2010) 5004 final of 20 July 2010 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.886 — Animal feed phosphates), in so far as that letter requires the provision of a guarantee from a bank that has received a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating as a condition for granting the applicants’ request for additional time to pay the fine jointly and severally imposed on them.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Rejects the plea of inadmissibility;

2. Dismisses the action;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Quimitécnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA and José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA relating to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice and the proceedings before the General Court prior to the appeal;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 May 2011 – Space Beach Club v OHIM – Flores Gómez (SpS space of sound)

(Case T-144/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark ‘SpS space of sound’ – Earlier national and Community figurative marks ‘space ibiza’, ‘space DANCE BARCELONA’, ‘space DANCE MADRID’, ‘space DANCE VALENCIA’, ‘space DANCE MALLORCA’, ‘space DANCE EIVISSA’, ‘space SPACE IBIZA WORLD’, ‘space DANCE’ and earlier national word mark ‘SPACE VIVA’ – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity between the signs – 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 38-40)

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 29, 36-37, 58, 60, 65)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 January 2010 (Case R 766/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Space Beach Club, SA and Miguel Ángel Flores Gómez.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Miguel Ángel Flores Gómez Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark SPS space of sound for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 41 – Application No 5683693 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Space Beach Club, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Earlier national and Community figurative marks space Ibiza, space DANCE BARCELONA, space DANCE MADRID, space DANCE VALENCIA, space DANCE MALLORCA, space DANCE EIVISSA, space SPACE IBIZA WORLD, space DANCE and earlier national word mark SPACE VIVA for goods and services in Classes 9, 25 and 41 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 September 2011 – Brighton Collectibles v OHIM – Felmar (BRIGHTON)

(Case T-403/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community word mark BRIGHTON – National word and figurative marks BRIGHTON and earlier signs BRIGHTON – Relative grounds for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) and 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 8(4) 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 44-47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2010 (Case R 408/2009-4) concerning an opposition procedure between Brighton Collectibles Inc. and Felmar.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Brighton Collectibles Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2011 – SE-Blusen Stenau v OHIM – Sport Eybl & Sports Experts (SE© SPORTS EQUIPMENT)

(Case T-477/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community figurative mark SE© SPORTS EQUIPMENT – Prior national word mark SE So Easy – Relative grounds for refusal – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) 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 19, 23, 66, 71-72)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 July 2010 (Case R 1393/2009-1) concerning an opposition procedure between SE-Blusen Stenau GmbH and Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH.

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 22 July 2010 (Case R 1393/2009-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by SE-Blusen Stenau GmbH;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2011 – El Coto De Rioja v OHIM – Álvarez Serrano (COTO DE GOMARIZ)

(Case T-276/10)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Figurative Community mark COTO DE GOMARIZ – Prior Community word marks COTO DE IMAZ and EL COTO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds of invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier trade mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 22, 49, 52-54)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2010 (Case R 1020/2008‑4) concerning invalidity proceedings between El Coto de Rioja, SA and Ms María Álvarez Serrano.

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) of 28 April 2010 (Case R 1020/2008‑4) in so far as the assessment of the Board of Appeal as to the similarity of the signs in question is incorrect;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 February 2012 —

Hartmann‑Lamboy v OHIM — Diptyque (DYNIQUE)



(Case T‑305/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DYNIQUE — Earlier Community word mark DIPTYQUE — 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, 33‑35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2010 (Case R 1217/2009‑1) concerning opposition proceedings between Diptyque SAS and Ms Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;