ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Procedural provisions

–

Statement of reasons for decisions

–

Article 73, first sentence, of Regulation No 40/94

–

Scope identical with that of Article 253 EC (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73, first sentence) (see paras 17-18, 23

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 May 2008 (Case R 1034/2007‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between (i) Pablo Barranco Schnitzler and Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and (ii) Matratzen Concord GmbH.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 May 2008 (Case R 1034/2007‑2);

2. Orders OHIM 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 22, 34-35

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 July 2008 (Case R 957/2006‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between BP plc and Enercon GmbH.

Information relating to the case

>lt>16

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Enercon GmbH 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 which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 35, 40, 52

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2008, as corrected on 5 February 2009 (Case R 1733/2007-1), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign Hunter.

Information relating to the case

>lt>18

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein GbR, Research and Development to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Date to be taken into consideration – Point at which the conditions for operation of non-contractual liability are met (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 52-55)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 72-73)

3. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Expenses incurred by a tenderer – Right to compensation – None – Exception – Infringement of Community law (see paras 86-87)

4. Non-contractual liability – Damage – Damage for which compensation is available – Costs incurred for the proceedings (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 88-89)

5. Non-contractual liability – Damage – Damage for which compensation is available – Concept – Costs incurred before the European Ombudsman (Arts 195(1) EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute of the European Ombudsman, Art. 2(6) and (7)) (see paras 90-91)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of irregularities and infringements of Community law committed by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities in connection with a number of Community tender procedures for electronic publication services.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as in part inadmissible and in part unfounded;

2. Orders C-Content BV 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 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 46-47

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 July 2008 (Case R 419/2008-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate rabbit.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli 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

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 31, 49, 62

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2008 (Case R 1522/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mary Quant Cosmetics Japan Ltd and Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat to pay the costs.
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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26-28, 56-59

)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Procedure for partial interim review of an anti-dumping duty — Not automatically opened following enlargement of the European Union — Manifest error of assessment — Exclusion (Council Regulations No 384/96, Art. 11(3), and No 1225/2009, Art. 11(3)) (see paras 36-40)

2. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (see paras 44, 45)

3. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Dumping margin — Determination of the normal value — Recourse to the constructed value — Production costs taken into account — Calculation of costs on the basis of accounting registers — Costs affected by a distortion of the market — Adjustment — Lawfulness — Criteria (Council Regulations No 384/96, Art. 2(3) and (5), and No 1225/2009, Art. 2(3) and (5)) (see paras 54, 58, 60, 65, 67-69)

4. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Dumping margin — Rules for calculation of the anti-dumping margin contained in the 1994 GATT Anti-dumping Agreement — Transposition into EU law by the basic anti-dumping regulation — Interpretation of Article 2(5) of that regulation in the light of that anti-dumping agreement (Agreement on the implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ‘1994 Anti-dumping Agreement 1994’, Art. 2.2.1.1; Council Regulations No 384/96, Art. 2(5), and No 1225/2009, Art. 2(5)) (see paras 83-89)

5. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Decision on the determination of the normal value — Statement of reasons — Taking into account of information communicated to the undertakings concerned during the administrative procedure (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulations No 384/96, Art. 2, and No 1225/2009, Art. 2) (see para. 118)

6. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Dumping margin — Asymmetry between the normal value and the export price affecting their comparability — Adjustments — Taking into account of commissions on sales (Council Regulations No 384/96, Art. 2(10)(i), and No 1225/2009, Art. 2(10)(i)) (see paras 129-133)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 of 8 July 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2008 L 185, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company OAO (EuroChem MCC) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by Fertilizers Europe;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Amplification of an existing, closely linked plea — Distinction between: (1) challenge to the proof of the existence of a concerted practice; and (2) denial that it is restrictive in character — Inadmissibility (Art. 81(1) EC; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2), first para.) (see paras 66-72)

2. Competition — Union rules — Application by the Commission — Obligation to take account of the objective of respecting and promoting cultural diversity (Arts 81 EC and 151(4) EC) (see paras 73, 87)

3. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Adverse effect on competition — Criteria for assessment — Partial restriction of competition on the basis that at least one form of competition is restricted — Sufficient (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 94)

4. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Exemption — Conditions — Cumulative nature — Burden of proof — Scope — Requirements connected with respect for and promotion of cultural diversity — No effect (Arts 81(3) EC and 151(4) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 99-108)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå u.p.a. (Stim) to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Review of legality — Criteria — Account taken only of the factual and legal elements existing at the date on which the contested measure was adopted (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 70)

2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement borne by the Commission — Extent of the burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 83, 130)

3. Union law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Presumption of innocence — Procedures in competition matters — Decision finding an infringement but not imposing a fine — Applicability (Art. 81(1) EC; Art. 6(2) EU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48(1)) (see paras 84-88)

4. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Means of proof — Reliance on a body of evidence — Degree of evidential value necessary as regards items of evidence viewed in isolation — Evidence based solely on the conduct of undertakings — Evidential obligations of undertakings disputing the reality of the infringement — Obligations of the Commission challenging the plausibility of the explanations proposed by the undertakings (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 89-93, 99, 153)

5. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Agreements which continue to produce their effects after they have formally ceased to be in force — Application of Article 81 EC (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 115)

6. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Concerted practice — Parallel conduct — Presumption that a concertation exists — Limits — Refusal by national copyright management societies to allow a user established in another Member State direct access to their repertoire — Adverse effect on competition (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 129)

7. Actions for annulment — Judicial review — Limits on jurisdiction (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 175)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním o.s. (OSA);

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 September 2013 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission

(Case T‑73/08)

‛Financial assistance paid in the context of the Daphne II programme — Determination of the amount of the final grant — Debit note — Measure open to challenge — Obligation to state reasons — Fair trial — Errors of assessment’

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Subject-matter of the dispute — Delimitation — Alteration once proceedings have been started — Prohibition (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2)) (see paras 42-44)

2. Judicial proceedings — Admissibility of actions — Introduction of a plea of inadmissibility — Dismissal of an action on the merits without first ruling on the plea of inadmissibility — Procedural economy (Rules of Procedure of the General Court) (see paras 47, 48)

3. EU budget — Community financial assistance — Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the aid — Decision to reduce the amount of aid by reason of irregularities — Copy of employment contract lacking — No justification on the basis of data protection — Ineligible expenses (Art. 274 EC) (see paras 55-59)

4. EU budget — Community financial assistance — Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the aid — Financing covering only expenses actually incurred — No proof of the reality of the expenses declared — Ineligible expenses (Art. 274 EC) (see paras 67-70)

5. EU budget — Community financial assistance — Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the aid — Financing covering only expenses actually incurred — Burden of proof (Art. 274 EC) (see paras 79-81, 103-105)

6. EU budget — Community financial assistance — Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the aid — Decision to reduce the amount of aid by reason of irregularities — Conflict of interests — Ineligible expenses (Art. 274 EC) (see paras 126-130)

7. EU budget — Community financial assistance — Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the aid — Decision to reduce the amount of aid by reason of irregularities — Ineligible expenses (Art. 274 EC) (see paras 132-135, 153, 154)

8. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Whether applicable to administrative procedures initiated by the Commission — Community financial assistance — Reasonable time-limit to submit observations — Refusal to grant extension of the period for reply — No infringement of the rights of the defence (Art. 274 EC) (see paras 187-192)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Commission contained in the debit note of 26 November 2007, in which it requested the applicant to repay the sum of EUR 23 228.07 which the Commission paid to the applicant pursuant to the Daphne Grant Agreement (JLS/DAP/2004‑1/080/YC).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 – Guedes – Indústria e Comércio v OHIM – Espai Rural de Gallecs (Gallecs)

(Case T-151/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark Gallecs – Earlier national and Community figurative marks GALLO, GALLO AZEITE NOVO, GALLO AZEITE – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Lack of similarity between the signs – Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now 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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34-35, 50-56)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2008 (Case R 986/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Victor Guedes – Indústria e Comércio SA and Consorci de l’Espai Rural de Gallecs.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Consorci de l’Espai Rural de Gallecs Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark GALLECS for goods in Classes 29 and 31 – Application No 3710597 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Victor Guedes – Indústria e Comércio, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative mark GALLO for goods in Class 29; the national figurative mark GALLO AZEITE NOVO for goods in Class 29; the national figurative mark AZEITE GALLO for goods in Class 29; the national mark GALLO AZEITE NOVO for goods in Class 29; the Community figurative mark GALLO for goods in Class 29 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 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 (Sixth Chamber) of 2 July 2009 – Fitoussi v OHIM – Loriot (IBIZA REPUBLIC)

(Case T-311/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for figurative Community trade mark IBIZA REPUBLIC – Earlier figurative national mark depicting a five-pointed star in a circle – Absolute 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 25, 35, 48, 57-58)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of 7 May 2008 of OHIM’s Second Board of Appeal (Case R 1135/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Paul Fitoussi and Ms Bernadette Nicole J. Loriot.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bernadettte Nicole J. Loriot Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark ‘IBIZA REPUBLIC’ for goods in Classes 25, 41 and 43 – Application No 3868072 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Paul Fitoussi Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark in the form of a five-pointed star surrounded by a circle, for goods in Class 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Paul Fitoussi to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 December 2009 – Iranian Tobacco v OHIM – AD Bulgartabac (Bahman)

(Case T-223/08)

Community trade mark – Revocation proceedings – Figurative Community trade mark Bahman – Interest in bringing proceedings not required – Article 55(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Application for revocation – Admissibility – Conditions – Interest in bringing proceedings (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 55(1)(a)) (see paras 18-23)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 April 2008 in Case R 709/2007-1 concerning revocation proceedings between AD Bulgartabac Holding Sofia and Iranian Tobacco Co.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which revocation was applied for: Figurative mark Bahman for goods in Class 34 – Community trade mark No 427336 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Iranian Tobacco Co. Applicant in the revocation proceedings: AD Bulgartabac Holding Sofia Decision of the Cancellation Division: Annulment of the Community trade mark concerned Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2010 – Proges v Commission

(Case T-577/08)

Public service contracts – Community tendering procedure – Programme for creation of land use models – Rejection of tenderer’s bid – Action for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Admissibility – Award criteria

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Application for compensation for damage allegedly caused by a Community institution – No brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 20-28)

2. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see para. 36)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission decision of 29 October 2008 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in a tendering procedure relating to the implementation of a programme for the creation of land use models, and also a claim for damages for the losses incurred by the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;