ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
239

That reading is borne out in the light of the factual context in which the declaration of 12 July 2002 was made. As the Commission seems to acknowledge itself (see paragraph 179 above), at that stage, in the absence of relevant information on the exact extent of the financial difficulties faced by FT, on the future reaction of the financial markets caused by that declaration and on the movements and trends which began following the proposed restructuring of FT, the French State could not yet know and determine, with sufficient precision, the nature, scope and conditions for the granting of any measures of support for that company. It is, on the contrary, apparent from all the acts of the French authorities performed on 12 July 2002, including the fact that they directly contacted the rating agencies, that those authorities were seeking to reassure the financial markets rapidly as to the French State’s potential and future support for FT with the sole aim of preventing further downgrading of its rating and denial of its access to new loans on the bond market, without however specifying the concrete form of that possible support at that precise moment. Indeed, prematurely specifying the concrete form of any measures of support could have run the risk of pointlessly restricting the refinancing options which might subsequently become available for FT’s debt while creating the need to notify such measures to the Commission under Article 88(3) EC. Moreover, because of its precipitate character, such an approach would have been liable to undermine the confidence of creditors and investors in the reliability of the French State’s action. In those circumstances, contrary to what is stated in recital 212 of the contested decision, the fact of having contacted the rating agencies could not be construed as a factor supporting the firm character of the alleged commitment given by the French State, but only as a first step intended to relieve the pressure to which FT’s position on the financial markets was subject in July 2002.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Three-dimensional marks

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Three-dimensional marks

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

Summary

1. When assessing the habits of the consumer concerned, which must be taken into account for the purposes of assessing the distinctiveness of a trade mark for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the normal marketing practices of the product in question should be taken into account. Thus, as regards the registration of a three-dimensional mark in the form of washing tablets, account may lawfully be taken of the fact that the washing tablets are usually sold in packaging bearing the product’s name and on which there are often word marks or figurative marks or other figurative features which may include a depiction of the product. Generally, the average consumer’s level of attention to the appearance of products marketed in that way is not high. In such circumstances, it is for the trade mark applicant to show, on the basis of specific and substantiated evidence, that consumers’ habits on the relevant market are different.

(see paras 52-54)

2. Three-dimensional signs in the form of square white tablets with coloured floral design, registration of which is sought for ‘Washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; preparations for the washing, cleaning and care of dishes; soaps’ within Class 3 of the Nice Agreement, are devoid of distinctive character in relation to the products concerned, for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. The addition of a symmetrical sign in the middle of a tablet, such as that represented by each of the designs in question, does not change the tablet’s appearance in any significant way. The combination of the square white shape of the tablets in question with a coloured design, that is, the floral four-, five- or six-petalled images at issue, does not differ significantly from the presentation of the washing tablet which comes readily to mind, in which the various active ingredients are laid out decoratively. Thus, as regards the overall impression produced by the combination of the shape, colours and design of the tablets in question, the latter do not enable the average consumer concerned to identify the trade origin of the goods in question when he makes his selection at the time of purchase.

(see paras 78, 90)
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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 56, 61, 63

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 October 2004 (Case R 691/2003-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Bodegas Roda SA and Castell del Remei, SL.

Information relating to the case

>lt>7

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant 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 23-26

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2005 (Case R 975/2004-1) concerning the registration of the device of a pentagon as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Cain Cellars, Inc. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



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))

Summary

The word mark TWIST & POUR, registration of which is applied for in respect of ‘Hand held plastic containers sold as an integral part of a liquid paint containing, storage and pouring device’ in Class 21 of the Nice Agreement, is devoid of distinctive character in relation to the products concerned for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. The mark does not merely evoke or allude to certain characteristics of the product, but, on the contrary, directly describes a characteristic of the product concerned. The fact that the relevant public is directly informed of the ease of use of the product constitutes a sufficiently concrete and direct link between the mark applied for and the goods concerned.

(see para. 55)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Time-limits

(Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 71(1) and (2))

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Opposition proceedings

(Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Rule 22(1))

Summary

1. It follows from the second sentence of Rule 71(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 implementing Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark that extension of the time-limits specified by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) is not automatic, but depends on circumstances which are specific to the individual case and which make it appropriate to grant an extension, as well as on the submission of a request for an extension. That holds especially true in relation to inter partes proceedings, in which an advantage granted to one of the parties constitutes a disadvantage for the other. In such cases, the Office must therefore ensure that it remains impartial with regard to the parties.

It is for the party requesting an extension to plead the circumstances making it appropriate, since it is in the interests of that party that the extension is sought and may be granted. Furthermore, where those circumstances are specific to the party requesting the extension, that party is the only one who can provide the Office with the relevant information regarding them. Accordingly, for the Opposition Division to be able to assess the existence of circumstances which make it appropriate to grant an extension, those circumstances must be specified in the related request.

Moreover, it is apparent from the overall scheme of Rule 71 that paragraph 2, which provides that, where there are two or more parties, the Office may extend the period specified, subject to the agreement of the other parties, does not lay down a single condition sufficient for the extension of a period specified; rather, it adds another condition to those set out in paragraph 1 that the extension must be requested by the party concerned before the expiry of the period specified and that it must be appropriate under the circumstances.

(see paras 21-22, 55-56)

2. It is apparent from the second sentence of Rule 22(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 implementing Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark that submission of proof of use of the earlier mark after the expiry of the period specified for that purpose results, in principle, in the rejection of the opposition without the Office having a discretion in that regard. Genuine use of the earlier mark is a preliminary matter which must accordingly be settled before a decision is taken on the opposition proper.

(see para. 49)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see paras 67-69)

2. European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 (Art. 253 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see paras 71-83, 85-97)

3. Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 114-116)

4. European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(a) and (3), second para.) (see paras 124-126)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 November 2004 partially refusing the applicant access to certain preparatory documents in respect of the legislation on genetically-modified organisms.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no further need to rule on the lawfulness of the Commission’s decision of 19 November 2004 partially refusing Ms Rhiannon Williams access to certain preparatory documents in respect of the legislation on genetically-modified organisms in so far as it may include an implied refusal of access to preparatory documents from the Commission’s Directorate-General (DG) for Trade relating to the adoption of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC;

2. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 19 November 2004 in so far as it impliedly refused access to preparatory documents relating to the adoption of Directive 2001/18 other than those produced by the Trade DG;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one half of those incurred by Ms Williams.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Actions for damages (Arts 225 EC, 235 EC, 238 EC and 240 EC) (see paras 33-40)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not present (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 43-44)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of Community law (Art. 288 EC) (see paras 55-56)

4. Non-contractual liability – Unlawful conduct of the institutions (Art. 288 EC) (see paras 55-80, 82-86)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the allegedly wrongful conduct of the Commission in regard to the non-renewal of his contract of employment concluded in the framework of technical cooperation between the Community and the Republic of Niger financed by the European Development Fund (EDF).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders Mr Philippe Guigard to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Communities

–

Institutions

–

Right of public access to documents

–

Regulation No 1049/2001 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 3 and 4(3)) (paras 40-42, 50, 88, 101-105, 108

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of 21 February 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing access to certain documents and sound recordings in connection with the 30th adaptation to technical progress of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967(I), p. 234).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of 21 February 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing Borax Europe Ltd access to the recordings of the meeting of 5 and 6 October 2004, to two drafts of the summary record of that meeting, to thirteen comments from experts, to two comments from industry representatives and to the document submitted by the Danish Rapporteur;

2. Orders the Commission 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 25, 31, 39-40

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2005 (Case R 1157/2004-1) concerning an application to register the word mark IFS as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

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 14 September 2005 (Case R 1157/2004-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by JTEKT Corp.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission

(Case T-175/05)

‛Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for monochloroacetic acid — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Market sharing and price fixing — Attributability of the infringement — Fines — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Deterrent effect’

1. Actions for annulment — Community law — Action brought by several companies in a group against a Commission decision fining them jointly and severally — Action admissible in relation to some of those entities — No need to adjudicate on a plea of inadmissibility raised against certain others not capable of benefiting from a possible annulment (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 46, 47)

2. Competition — Community rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly-owned subsidiaries — Obligation of the parent company to rebut the presumption that management power was actually exercised over its subsidiary (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 91-93, 96)

3. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Maximum amount — Calculation — Turnover to be taken into consideration — Cumulative turnover of all the companies constituting the economic unit acting as an undertaking (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 15, and 1/2003, Art. 23) (see paras 114, 132, 133)

4. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Turnover taken into consideration — Reference year — Last full year of the infringement (Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 15, and 1/2003, Art. 23) (see paras 142, 143)

5. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Deterrent effect — Account taken of the size and global resources of the fined undertaking (Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 15, and 1/2003, Art. 23; Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, Section 1A) (see paras 154, 155)

Re:

APPLICATION, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.773 — MCAA) and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1) and 48(2)) (see paras 57-58)

2. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Aggravating circumstances – Repeat infringement (Art. 65 CS; Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, para. 2) (see paras 61-63)

3. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Aggravating circumstances – Repeat infringement (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, para. 2) (see paras 69-70)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Size of the product market in question – To be taken into consideration (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2)) (see para. 77)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for cancellation or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants under Article 2(j) of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 – Copper plumbing tubes).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Outokumpu Oyj and Luvata Oy to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 22 May 2007 – Mebrom v Commission

(Case T-198/05)

Non-contractual liability – Importation of methyl bromide into the European Union – Delay in setting up an Internet site for requesting and obtaining import licences and quotas – Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 – Damage resulting from loss of profit – Actual damage

Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 50-52, 59, 68, 70, 72)

Re:

ACTION for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s failure to set up a system allowing the applicant to import methyl bromide for critical uses into the European Union in January and February 2005.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2008 – JTEKT v OHIM (IFS)

(Case T-462/05)

Community trade mark – Application for a Community word mark IFS – Absolute grounds for refusal – Not descriptive – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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, 39-40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2005 (Case R 1157/2004-1) concerning an application to register the word mark IFS as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: JTEKT Corp. Community trade mark sought: Word mark IFS for goods in Class 12 – Application No 3157492 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





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 14 September 2005 (Case R 1157/2004-1);
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 – JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat v Council

(Case T-348/05 INTP)

Procedure – Interpretation of a judgment

Procedure – Interpretation of a judgment – Conditions for admissibility of the application (Arts 231, second para., EC and 233, first para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 129) (see paras 3-7)

Re:

APPLICATION for interpretation of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 in Case T‑348/05.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that the first point of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 in Case T‑348/05 JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat v Council is to be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005, amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, is annulled in so far as it concerns JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat;

2. Orders JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own 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 39, 42, 45-47

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 February 2006 in Case R 3/2005-2 relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG.

Information relating to the case

>lt>8

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG 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 41-46

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2005 (Case R 237/2005-2) dismissing in part the appeal against the examiner’s decision refusing registration of the word mark Vorsprung durch Technik for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 25, 28, 37 to 40 and 42.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Audi AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).