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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 45, 53

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2004 (Case R 550/2003-2) concerning opposition proceedings between El Coto de Rioja SA and Sebirán SL.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses the application of El Coto de Rioja SA for the partial annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 June 2004 (Case R 550/2003-2);

3. Orders Sebirán SL to pay its own costs and those of OHIM and one half of the costs of El Coto de Rioja SA;

4. Orders El Coto de Rioja SA to bear one half of its own costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

–

Possibility of being individually concerned by a general decision

–

Conditions

–

Commission regulation designed to establish the rules for applying the work programme for examining all existing active substances

–

Action brought by producers of active substances

–

Not individually concerned

–

Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 2032/2003) (see paras 47-51, 57-59, 62-63

)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2005 − BIC v OHIM (Shape of an elecronic lighter)

(Case T-263/04)

Community trade mark – Three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of an electronic lighter – Absolute ground for refusal – Distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Three-dimensional mark – Shape of an electronic lighter (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 34)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Exception – Acquisition through use – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(3)) (see paras 61-66)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2004 (Case R 469/2003-4), in relation to the registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of an electronic lighter.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: BIC SA Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a lighter Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 4 October 2006 – Freixenet v OHIM (Shape of a frosted white bottle)

(Case T-190/04)

Community trade mark – Shape of a frosted white bottle – Absolute ground for refusal – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Lack of distinctive character – Infringement of the rights of the defence – Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(3) and (6)) (see paras 15-18, 44-47)

2. Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Compliance with rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see paras 28-30, 41-42)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2004 (Case R 97/2001-4) concerning registration of a mark in the form of a frosted white bottle as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Freixenet, SA Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a frosted white bottle for goods in Class 33 – Application No 32532 Decision of the examiner: Refusal of registration Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 February 2004 (Case R 97/2001-4);

Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2007 – Bouychou v Commission

(Case T-344/04)

Non-contractual liability – Decision ordering repayment of State aid granted by France to the company Stardust Marine – Annulment of the decision by judgment of the Court

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Cumulative nature – Damage – Causal link – Burden of proof (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 33-34, 40-43)

Re:

CLAIM for compensation for loss allegedly caused by Commission Decision 2000/513/EC of 8 September 1999 on aid granted by France to the company Stardust Marine, represented by Denis Bouychou, as insolvency administrator.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as unfounded;
PRIMARILY, ANNULMENT of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 16 December 2003 concerning the closure of assistance ERDF 98.05.26.001, annulment of the Commission decisions reducing the assistance, withdrawing the assistance and recovering the balance of the assistance, and annulment of Article 6.2 of Commission Decision SEC (1999) 1316 of 9 September 1999 on guidelines for the financial closure of operational assistance (1994–1999) from the Structural Funds, and, in the alternative, compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant and performance of the agreement of 13 September 1999 between the applicant and the Commission.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2007 – Sunplus Technology v OHIM – Sun Microsystems (SUNPLUS)

(Case T-38/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for figurative mark SUNPLUS – Earlier national word mark SUN – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity between goods – Similarity between marks

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 43-44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2003 (Case R 642/2000-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sun Microsystems, Inc. and Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark SUNPLUS for certain goods in Class 9 – Application No 214346 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word and figurative mark SUN for goods in Class 9 Decision of the Opposition Division: Application dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2008 – Região autónoma dos Açores v Council

(Case T-37/04)

Action for annulment – Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 – Fisheries – Management of the fishing effort – Community fishing areas and resources – Action brought by a regional body – Persons individually concerned – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 1954/2003) (see paras 33-38)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Arts 230, fourth para., EC and 299(2) EC; Council Regulation No 1954/2003) (see paras 53-56)

3. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Measures of general scope – Need for natural or legal persons to have recourse to a plea of illegality or a reference for a preliminary ruling on validity (Arts 230, fourth para., EC, 234 EC and 241 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1367/2006; Council Regulation No 1954/2003) (see paras 92-93)

Re:

ACTION seeking partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95 (OJ 2003 L 289, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Região autónoma dos Açores to bear its own costs and pay those of the Council, including those incurred in the interim proceedings;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission to bear their own costs, including those incurred in the interim proceedings;

4. Orders Seas at Risk VZW and WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature to bear their own costs, including those incurred in the interim proceedings;

5. Orders Stichting Greenpeace Council to bear its own costs incurred in the present proceedings;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 27 February 2008 – Citigroup v OHIM – Link Interchange Network (WORLDLINK)

(Case T-325/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark WORLDLINK – Earlier national figurative mark LiNK – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Restriction of services covered in the trade mark application – Identity of services – Similarity of signs – Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 95-96, 101)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 May 2004 (Case R 789/2002-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Link Interchange Network Ltd and Citigroup, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Citigroup, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark WORLDLINK for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 36 – Application No 111880 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Link Interchange Network Ltd Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark LiNK for goods in Class 36 Decision of the Opposition Division: Application for registration dismissed for goods in Class 36: financial and monetary matters 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 4 March 2009 – Tirrenia di Navigazione and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-265/04, T-292/04 and T-504/04)

State aid – Maritime transport – Subsidies paid by the Italian authorities to regional undertakings – Decision declaring the aid in part compatible and in part incompatible with the common market – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – New or existing aid – Duty to state reasons – Article 4(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92

1. Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action by the recipient of State aid against a Commission decision declaring it compatible with the common market (Arts 230 EC, fourth para., and 233 EC) (see paras 63-72)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision on State aid (Arts 87 EC and 253 EC) (see paras 98-99, 101-103)

3. Commission – Principle of collegiality – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 107-108)

4. State aid – Existing aid and new aid – Definition (Art. 88(3) EC) (see paras 123-124, 126-127)

5. State aid – Existing aid and new aid – Payments in favour of shipping companies providing, in the context of public service contracts, regular services to and from islands (Art. 88(1) and (3) EC; Council Regulation No 3577/92, Art. 4(3)) (see paras 143-144)

6. Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Scope – Absolute authority of res judicata (see paras 159-160)

Re:

APPLICATIONS for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2005/163/EC of 16 March 2004 on the State aid paid by Italy to the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar shipping companies (Tirrenia Group) (OJ 2005 L 53, p. 29).

Operative part

The Court:

1. In Cases T-265/04 and T-292/04, annuls Commission Decision 2005/163/EC of 16 March 2004 on the State aid paid by Italy to the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar shipping companies (Tirrenia Group);

2. In Case T-504/04, declares that the action has become devoid of purpose;

3. In Case T-265/04, orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA;

4. In Case T-292/04, orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Caremar SpA, Siremar SpA, Saremar SpA and Toremar SpA;

5. In Case T-504/04, orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Navigazione Libera del Golfo SpA;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2011 – Arch Chemicals and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-400/04, T-402/04 to T-404/04)

Health policy – Placing on the market of biocidal products – Identification of active substances on the market – Decision refusing amendment of certain provisions of the legislation – Actions for failure to act – Obligation to act – Actions for annulment – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for failure to act – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Direction issued to an institution – Not permissible – Application for declaration of unlawful failure to act – Admissibility (Art. 232, second para., EC) (see para. 40)

2. Actions for failure to act – Commission’s duty to act – Reasonable time-limits within which to respond to a call to act – Unlawfulness of EU law provisions – Obligation on the Commission to amend them – None – Obligation not arising from any provision or general principle of EU law (Arts 211 EC and 232 EC) (see paras 57, 59-60, 65-67)

3. Actions for annulment – Action against a decision refusing to withdraw or amend an earlier act – Admissibility to be assessed in relation to the possibility of challenging the act at issue (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 79, 86)

Re:

ACTION, firstly, seeking a declaration of the Commission’s failure to act in that it unlawfully refrained from amending certain provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products (OJ 2000 L 228, p. 6) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8 and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (OJ 2003 L 307, p. 1) and, in the alternative, action for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 20 July 2004 refusing to grant the applicants’ requests and, secondly, action for compensation for the loss which the applicants suffered as a result of the Commission’s failure to act and, in the alternative, action for compensation for the loss caused by the Commission’s letter of 20 July 2004.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 8(1)(b) and 74)

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

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

Summary

1. Where it is based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, opposition to the registration of a trade mark requires the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to adjudicate on whether the goods and services covered by the conflicting marks are similar or identical. That is also the case even where the Office, or one of the parties to the proceedings, considers it unnecessary to examine that question because of the considerable differences between the marks, which, in any event, rule out a likelihood of confusion.

Next, the fact that the applicant for an opposed Community trade mark, after agreeing in the proceedings before the Opposition Division that the goods or services covered by the conflicting marks may potentially be identical, states before the Board of Appeal that the question whether the goods or services are similar may be left undecided on account of the alleged differences between the marks, does not in any way divest the Office of the power to adjudicate on whether the goods or services covered by those marks are similar or identical.

Likewise, therefore, that fact does not deprive that party of the right to challenge, before the Court of First Instance and in the factual and legal context of the dispute before the Board of Appeal, the findings of that body on this point. Such a finding is not, in fact, contrary to the prohibition laid down in Article 135(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance on altering, before the Court of First Instance, the subject-matter of the dispute as it was brought before the Board of Appeal, pursuant to Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94.

(see paras 41-43)

2. There is on the part of all consumers within the Community a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark between the word mark ARMAFOAM, for which registration is sought as a Community trade mark for ‘foam goods made from elastomerics, thermoplastics or thermosets as system component or as end use application’ in Class 20 of the Nice Agreement, and the word mark NOMAFOAM, previously registered as a Community trade mark for all goods in Classes 17, 19, 20, 27 and 28 of that agreement, in view of the fact that, first, the goods covered by the conflicting marks are very similar, if not identical, and, second, those marks are both visually and phonetically similar, at the very least as far as the non-English-speaking public is concerned.

(see paras 34, 55, 67-68)
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

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 32-33, 45, 49-50

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2005 (Case R 823/2004‑2) refusing the application for registration of the word mark GOLF USA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>9

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

Procedure – Reference to the Court pursuant to an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 33-35)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Summary statement of pleas (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)) (see para. 37)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION brought by the Commission under Article 238 EC with a view to securing repayment of an advance made to the defendant in the context of a contract concerning a project for the development of technology for producing impermeable leathers (contract G1ST-CT-2002-50227).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Commission to pay its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Decision closing a proceeding on a complaint for infringement of the competition rules (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 3(2)(b), and 1/2003, Art. 7(2)) (see paras 66-70)

2. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Determination of priorities by the Commission (Arts 81 EC, 82 EC, 85(1) EC and 253 EC; Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 3(2), and 1/2003, Art. 7(2)) (see paras 91-97, 129-130, 149, 174, 180, 191-192)

3. Actions for annulment – Action against a decision to take no action on a complaint in competition matters – Plea based on failure to take a position on one of the aspects of the complaint – Omission falling within the action for failure to act – Action devoid of purpose in relation to that plea (Arts 230 EC and 232 EC) (see para. 160)

4. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Taking into account the Community interest in investigating a case – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 3(2), and 1/2003, Art. 7(2)) (see paras 133-134, 148, 187, 189)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of the Commission’s decision of 2 May 2005 pursuant to Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 EC and 82 EC (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18), rejecting complaint No COMP/D3/38469 concerning the levy of certain charges by the operator of Athens International Airport at Spata and by Olympic Fuel Company.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Isabella Scippacercola and Ioannis Terezakis to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Own resources of the European Communities – Regulation on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests – Irregularity – Definition (Council Regulation No 2988/95 Art. 1(2), (4) and (5))

2. Own resources of the European Communities – Regulation on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests – Prosecution of irregularities – Limitation period (Council Regulation No 2988/95, Arts 3 and 4(1))

3. Own resources of the European Communities – Regulation on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests – Prosecution of irregularities – Limitation period (Council Regulation No 2988/95, Art. 3(1), para. 2; Commission Regulation No 1116/88, Art. 8)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Damage – Causal link – Burden of proof

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION to annul Decision C(2005) 2939 of 26 July 2005 reducing the outstanding balance of Community financial assistance granted to the application for the modernisation and renovation of its fish farm facilities and an application for compensation for harm arising from that reduction.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 2939 of 26 July 2005 in so far as it reduces the Community financial assistance granted to Azienda Agricola ‘Le Canne’ Srl for project IT/0016/90/02 on account of the imputation to the eligible expenditure to that assistance of the profit made by Giradello SpA for the performance of works related to that project;

2. Dismisses the action for damages;

3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.