ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



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))

Summary

There is, for the relevant public consisting of consumers throughout the whole Community who are very attentive, well informed and familiar with basic English financial terminology, no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark between the word sign CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS, in respect of which registration as a Community trade mark is sought for ‘[f]inancial services; commodity trading; commodities brokerage; commodities finance; commodities investment services; services relating to the trading of commodities; provision of pricing information of commodities; capital investments; investment services; services relating to emissions allowance trading; options trading; trading in emissions allowances; trading in equities; trading in stocks; commodities brokerage; risk management services; financing of acquisitions; information, advisory and consultancy services relating to emissions trading’ falling within Class 36 of the Nice Agreement, and the figurative marks CM Capital Markets registered earlier as a Community trade mark for services in Classes 35, 36 and 42, and in Spain for services in Class 36.

Since the services falling in particular within Class 36 of the Nice Agreement that are covered by the earlier marks include the same range of financial sector services as those covered by the trade mark applied for and falling within the same class, the services at issue are identical. By contrast, the signs at issue are different. In the overall impression conveyed by the signs at issue, the visual and conceptual differences between the signs are sufficient to outweigh their limited phonetic similarity, particularly since, in the present case, the relevant public is highly attentive and well informed. Bearing in mind the lack of similarity of the signs at issue, in spite of the services covered being identical, there is no likelihood of direct confusion between the trade mark applied for and the earlier marks.

(see paras 33-34, 61, 64)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Surrender, revocation and invalidity

–

Relative grounds of invalidity

–

Registration contrary to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 42

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2008 (Case R 597/2007‑2) concerning invalidity proceedings between Ravensburger AG and Educa Borras SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ravensburger AG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture – Uniform legislation – Protection of plant varieties – Appeals procedure

(Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 73; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4))

2. Agriculture – Uniform legislation – Protection of plant varieties – Technical examination

(Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 55(4))

Summary

1. The purpose of an action before the General Court is to obtain a review of the legality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office, as provided for in Article 73 of Regulation No 2100/94, on Community plant variety rights, as amended. This must therefore be carried out with regard to the issues of law raised before the Board of Appeal. Therefore, it is not the Court’s function to examine new pleas introduced before it. To allow the examination of those new pleas would be contrary to Article 135(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, according to which the parties’ pleadings may not change the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

(see para. 34)

2. The discretion conferred on the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) by Article 55(4) of Regulation No 2100/94, on Community plant variety rights, includes the right for the CPVO to define, should it deem it necessary, the requirements which it applies to the examination of an application for a Community plant variety right, on condition that the period within which the applicant for such a right must respond to the request in the individual case made to him has not expired.

In that connection, it is consistent with the principle of sound administration and with the need to ensure the proper conduct and effectiveness of proceedings that, when it finds that the lack of precision which it has noted may be corrected, the CPVO has the power to continue with the examination of the application filed with it and is not required, in that situation, to refuse that application. Thus envisaged, that discretion makes it possible to avoid any pointless increase in the period between the filing of an application for a Community plant variety right and the decision on that application which would arise if the applicant were required to file a new application.

In addition, that discretion enables, first, the CPVO to satisfy itself that its requests in individual cases are clear and that the applicant alone is responsible for the fact that its actions fail to comply with those requests and, second, applicants to know their rights and obligations without ambiguity and to take steps accordingly, which is a requirement inherent in the principle of legal certainty.

(see paras 63-65)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see paras 30, 77)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Comission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 31-38, 58-60, 63-67)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION (i) for annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 20 June 2008 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in Call for Tender AO 10185 for computing services – maintenance of the SEI‑BUD/AMD/CR systems and related services and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer, and (ii) for damages.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear 90% of its own costs and to pay 90% of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and the latter to bear 10% of its own costs and to pay 10% of the costs incurred by Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Silence or inaction of an institution – Assimilation to an implied decision of refusal – Not included – Limits (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 35-36)

2. European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents – Concept – Individual interest of the applicant – Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 2(1) and 4(2)) (see paras 56, 58-59, 71)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 September 2008 refusing the applicant access to certain data in documents concerning a contract headed ‘TACIS Service Contract No 98.0414’ relating to assistance in the drafting of an administrative code for the Russian Federation.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Dieter C. Umbach to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion – Duty of diligence – Genuine use of the earlier mark

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(1))

Summary

Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark is statement of the duty of diligence, under which the relevant institution is required to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant factual and legal aspects of the case in question.

Similarly, in the context of the assessment of whether sufficient evidence of genuine use of an earlier mark has been adduced, it falls to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and its Boards of Appeal to examine, carefully and impartially, all the evidence submitted by the parties to the dispute.

(see paras 19-20)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – Decision concerning aid aimed at compensating for losses suffered by a sugar refinery following a fall in production of beet sugar due to a drought – Effect on trade between Member States – Adverse effect on competition – Duty to state reasons – Scope (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 29-32)

2. State aid – Effect on trade between Member States – Adverse effect on competition – Aid of little importance in a sector with lively competition – Sugar producing market (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 37-39)

3. Actions for annulment – Action brought against a Commission decision declaring State aid incompatible with the common market – Plea claiming error of legal basis having no effect on the legality of the contested decision – Invalid plea in law (see paras 49-53)

4. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Economic disadvantages caused directly by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences – Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector – Aid aimed at compensating for losses in agricultural production or means of agricultural production – Scope (Art. 87(2)(b) EC; Commission Notice 2000/C 28/02) (see paras 58, 61-71)

5. State aid – Administrative procedure – Obligation on the Commission to put the parties concerned on notice to submit their observations – Exlusion of the interested parties from the benefit of defence rights (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 79-81)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/704/EC of 16 July 2008 relating to State aid C 29/2004 (ex N 328/2003) that Italy is considering granting to the Villasor sugar refinery owned by Sadam ISZ (OJ 2009 L 244, p. 10).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Eridania SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Keywords



Keywords

Competition — European Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 73‑77)

2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Statement of objections — Necessary content — Observance of the rights of the defence — Clear indication of the parties liable to be fined and the capacity in which they are to be penalised (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 27(1)) (see para. 110)

3. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Judicial review — Assessment of the duration of the infringement by progressive six-month thresholds — Period longer than that of the actual participation in the infringement — Lawfulness — Conditions (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02) (see paras 92‑145)

4. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Reduction of the amount of the fine for cooperation of the undertaking concerned — Conditions — Discretion of the Commission (Commission Notice 2002/C 45/03) (see paras 157‑164, 167)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of Community rules – Challenge by the Member State concerned – Burden of proof – Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (see paras 27-31, 51-53)

2. Actions for annulment – Contested act – Assessment of legality in the light of the information available at the time of adoption of the measure (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 54-55)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/321/EC of 8 April 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2008 L 109, p. 35).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2012 — Cadila Healthcare v OHIM – Novartis (ZYDUS)

(Case T-288/08)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ZYDUS — Earlier Community word mark ZIMBUS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — 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 32, 62-67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2008 (Case R 1092/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis AG and Cadila Healthcare Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for a ruling that there is no need to adjudicate;

2. Dismisses the action;

3. Orders Cadila Healthcare Ltd to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2012 — Cadila Healthcare v OHIM – Novartis (ZYDUS)

(Case T-288/08)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ZYDUS — Earlier Community word mark ZIMBUS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — 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 32, 62-67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2008 (Case R 1092/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis AG and Cadila Healthcare Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for a ruling that there is no need to adjudicate;

2. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Conditions relating to a signatory — Third party capacity in relation to the parties — Company represented by its in-house lawyers — Non-compliance with the requirement of independence (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third and fourth paras) (see paras 57-59)

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 73, 120)

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 74-78)

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 79-84, 143)

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 (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 105)

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. 119)

7. Actions for annulment — Judicial review — Limits on jurisdiction (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 165)

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 Società italiana degli autori ed editori (SIAE);

2. Annuls Article 4(2) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final as regards SIAE;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

4. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the main proceedings;

5. Orders SIAE and the Commission each to bear their own costs relating to the interim relief proceedings.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T‑164/08)

‛Languages — Notices of open competition for the recruitment of doctors — Full publication in three official languages — Information concerning the notices of open competitions — Publication in all official languages — Language of the tests — Choice of second language from three official languages’

1. Officials — Competitions — Notice of open competition — Publication in full in the Official Journal only in some official languages and brief notice in all languages — Not permissible — Discrimination based on language — Breach of principle of proportionality (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 21; Staff Regulations, Art. 1 quinquies, (1) and (6); Annex III, Art. 1(2); Council Regulation No 1, Art. 5) (see paras 24-30)

2. Officials — Competitions — Running of an open competition — Languages of participation in tests — Equal treatment — Requirement of specific linguistic knowledge — Statement of reasons — Justification having regard to the interests of the service — Observance of the principle of proportionality (Staff Regulations, Arts 1 quinquies, (1) and (6), 27, first para., and 28(f); Annex III, Art. 1(1)(f); Council Regulation No 1, Art. 1) (see paras 35-41)

3. Actions brought by officials — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Annulment of a notice of open competition — Legitimate expectations of the candidates selected — Results of the competition not called into question (Art. 266 TFEU; Staff Regulations, Art. 91) (see paras 50, 51)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/125/08 (AD 7 and AD 9) to constitute a reserve list of doctors, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union of 21 February 2008 (OJ 2008 C 48 A, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the notices of open competition EPSO/AD/125/08 (AD 7 and AD 9) to constitute a reserve list of doctors, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union of 21 February 2008;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2009 – Enercon v OHIM (E-Ship)

(Case T-81/08)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark E-Ship – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

1. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see para. 10)

2. Community trade mark – Effects of the Community trade mark – Limitations (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 12(b)) (see paras 24-25)

3. 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 33-35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2007 (Case R 319/2007-1), relating to an application for registration of the sign E-ship as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Enercon GmbH Community trade mark sought: Verbal mark E-Ship for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 12 and 39 – Application No 5050539 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 8 July 2009 – Procter & Gamble v OHIM – Laboratorios Alcala Farma (oli)

(Case T-240/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the figurative Community mark oli – Earlier Community word marks OLAY – 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 28, 45, 54)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2008 (Case R 1481/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between The Procter & Gamble Company and Laboratorios Alcala Farma, SL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Laboratorios Alcala Farma, SL Community trade mark sought: The figurative mark oli for goods in Classes 3 and 5 – Application No 4059176 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The Procter & Gamble Company Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Community trade marks OLAY for goods in Classes 3 and 5 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 The Procter & Gamble Company to pay the costs.