ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 12 October 2011 – Dimos Peramatos v Commission

(Case T-312/07)

Financial contribution granted for an environmental project – LIFE – Decision to recover in part the amount paid out – Determination of the obligations of the recipient undertaken in the financed project – Legitimate expectations – Duty to state reasons

1. European Union law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions – Specific assurances given by the administration – Financial aid granted for an environmental project – Decision to effect partial recovery of the amount paid, determined after a technical check carried out after the accounting check by the Commission – Knowledge of the person concerned – No infringement of the principle (Council Regulation No 1973/92) (see paras 50-52, 57, 64-67)

2. Economic and social cohesion – European Regional Development Fund – Grant of Community financial assistance – Conditions – Compliance with the terms set out by the Commission and those in the application for assistance – Reduction of the amount of the financial assistance approved in the initial budget where that obligation infringed (Council Regulation No 1973/92) (see para. 73)

3. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing granted for national projects – Obligation on applicants for and beneficiaries of financial assistance to provide information and to cooperate – Scope (Council Regulation No 1973/92) (see para. 75)

4. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (see paras 113-118)

5. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Action brought against a Commission decision partially to recover an amount paid for carrying out an environmental project – No unlimited jurisdiction (see para. 121)

Re:

ACTION for annulment or, in the alternative, amendment of Decision E (2005) 5361 of the Commission of 7 December 2005 relating to Debit Note No 3240504536 which was issued to the Dimos Peramatos (Municipality of Perama) to recover the financial contribution which had been paid by the Commission in the context of the subsidy granted to the Dimos Peramatos by Commission Decision C(97)/1997/29 final of 17 July 1997.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-248/07)

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Measures to be adopted due to the accession of new Member States — 2003 Act of Accession — Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination — Objective pursued by a provision of primary legislation — Decision 2007/361/EC

1. Accession of new Member States to the Communities — 2003 Act of Accession — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures concerning trade in agricultural products — Assessment of excess stocks — Attenuation of the obligation to eliminate excess stocks (2003 Act of Accession, Annex IV, Section 4(2); Commission Regulation No 1972/2003) (see para. 30)

2. Accession of new Member States to the Communities — 2003 Act of Accession — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures concerning trade in agricultural products — Elimination by new Member States of their excess stocks — Concept — Commission’s margin of discretion (2003 Act of Accession, Annex IV, Section 4(2)) (see paras 40-48)

3. Accession of new Member States to the Communities — 2003 Act of Accession — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures concerning trade in agricultural products — Duty of new Member States to eliminate their excess stocks — Commission decision imposing a payment obligation not designed to cover the costs of eliminating surpluses from the internal market — Incompatibility with Annex IV, Section 4(2) of the Act of Accession — Annulment (2003 Act of Accession, Annex IV, Section 4(2)) (see paras 49-52, 75-77, 79-80)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2007 L 138, p. 14).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Czech Republic and to bear its own costs;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2009 — Promat v OHIM — Prosima Comercial (PROSIMA PROSIMA COMERCIAL S.A.)

(Case T-71/08)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark PROSIMA PROSIMA COMERCIAL S.A. — Earlier national word mark PROMINA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Absence of similarity between the goods — 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94 Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 39, 42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 November 2007 (Case R 574/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Promat GmbH and Prosima Comercial, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Prosima Comercial, SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark PROSIMA PROSIMA COMERCIAL S.A. for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 11, 16, 17, 20, 22, 35 - 39, 41 and 42 — Application No 2423176 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Promat GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark PROMINA for goods and services in Class 7 — German trade mark No 847011 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 (Second Chamber) of 5 May 2009 — ars Parfum Creation & Consulting v OHIM (Shape of a spray bottle)

(Case T-104/08)

‛Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a spray bottle — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Obligation to state reasons — Articles 7(1)(b), 73 and 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94’

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 40, 42, 46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 November 2007 (Case R 1656/2006-1), relating to the registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a spray bottle.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: ars Parfum Creation & Consulting GmbH Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a perfume bottle for goods in Class 3 — Application No 4995361 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 (Fourth Chamber) of 13 October 2009 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — Redrock Construction (REDROCK)

(Case T-146/08)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark REDROCK — Earlier national word mark Rock — 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 41-47, 86-89)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 February 2008 (Case R 506/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG and Redrock Construction s.r.o.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Redrock Construction s.r.o. Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark REDROCK for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 17, 19, 36 and 37 — Application No 3866365 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll Gmbh & Co. OHG Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark Rock for goods and services in Classes 1, 6 to 8, 17, 19, 37 and 42 (No 30229274), the opposition being directed at registration in all classes except Class 36 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed and application refused in part Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled and opposition dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Redrock Construction s.r.o.;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 8 July 2009 — Commission v Atlantic Energy

(Case T-182/08)

‛Arbitration clause — Contract for financial assistance concluded under a specific programme in the field of non-nuclear energy — Failure to comply with the contract — Reimbursement of sums advanced — Statutory set-off — Procedure for judgment by default’

1. Procedure — Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 50-69)

2. Procedure — Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause — Review of the legality of an extra-judicial set-off decision between debts and credit balances adopted by the Commission on the basis of Regulation No 1605/2002 — Not included (Arts 230 EC and 238 EC) (see para. 70)

Re:

ACTION brought by the Commission under Article 238 EC for reimbursement of an advance paid by the European Community, together with interest, under contract BU 83/95 UK/AT.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Atlantic Energy Ltd to reimburse to the Commission of the European Communities the principal sum of EUR 226010, together with the interest provided for under Article 23.1 of the general conditions of contract BU 183/95 UK/AT in respect of the periods between 1 June 1996 and and between and , less the sum of EUR 3610.53, the final sum being increased by the interest provided for under the abovementioned Article 23.1 of the general conditions as from until the debt is discharged in full;
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 33, 68-69

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2008 (Case R 1484/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG and REWE-Zentral AG.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders REWE-Zentral AG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Procedural provisions

–

Restitutio in integrum (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 78(1)) (see para. 29

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2008 (Case R 1245/2007-4) relating to an application for restitutio in integrum .

Information relating to the case

>lt>7

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Rodd & Gunn Australia Ltd to pay the costs.
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

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

Summary

There is, for the average consumer, no likelihood of confusion between the three-dimensional sign consisting of a bottle of cylindrical form with a narrowed, helically formed neck, which bears the inscription ‘snipp’ on the cylindrical part and in respect of which registration as a Community trade mark is sought for goods in Classes 30, 32 and 33 of the Nice Agreement, and the three-dimensional mark consisting of the shape of a bottle with a helically formed neck, which was registered previously as a Community trade mark for identical or very similar goods in Classes 21, 32 and 33 of that Agreement.

Although it is true that the word element, ‘snipp’, of the trade mark applied for, engraved in the same colour as the glass, is difficult to see and, consequently, is not likely to have an effect on the overall impression produced by the trade mark, and although it is evident that the necks of the bottles of the signs at issue are both helically formed and, consequently, can be distinguished from traditional necks, the fact remains that the overall visual impression is of various significant differences between the signs at issue.

First, the earlier sign appears, from the perspective of average consumers who are reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to be longer, slimmer and therefore more delicate than the sign applied for, which has a smaller, thicker and more corpulent silhouette which gives a more bulky impression. In addition, in the case of the sign applied for the shape of the body of the bottle is irregular because of its curvy form, whereas that of the earlier sign is straight. Secondly, the necks, although both helical, have different spirals. Whereas the neck of the earlier sign is thinner and consists of only two helical turns, that of the sign applied for is wider and consists of at least four helical turns.

Since the signs at issue have significant differences and it has not been demonstrated in what way the earlier mark is highly distinctive, the mere fact that the two bottles have a helically formed neck does not lead to the conclusion that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, despite the fact that the goods at issue are identical. As regards the tactile impression of the marks at issue, the selling arrangements for the bottles – namely their display as labelled goods in the food aisles of supermarkets or their being ordered in a bar or restaurant – mean that prior to purchase the consumer will concentrate mainly on the word and figurative elements on their labels, such as the trade mark’s name, logo and/or other figurative elements indicating the product’s origin.

(see paras 25-26, 32-33)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Partial use – Effect (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 56-57)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 68-69, 90)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2008 (Case R 1631/2007‑4), concerning opposition proceedings between Sanofi-Aventis SA and Kureha Corp.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Kureha Corp. to pay its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

3. Orders Sanofi-Aventis SA to bear its own 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 24, 33

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2008 (Case R 761/2007‑1) relating to an application to register the word sign Golden Toast as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Arbeitsgemeinschaft Golden Toast eV 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 23, 27-30

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of 30 June 2008 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1734/2007-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing a dog.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

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

State aid – Concept – Compensation awarded for expropriation of assets – Not included (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 57, 60, 63, 72, 74, 99, 101)

2. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Administrative procedure – Obligation on the Commission to put the parties concerned on notice to submit their observations – Right of the aid beneficiary to be sufficiently associated with the proceedings – Limits (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 161-163, 166-168)

3. EU Law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Whether applicable to administrative procedures initiated by the Commission – Examination of plans to grant aid – Scope (Art. 88(2) EC) (see para. 189)

4. State aid – Planned aid – Notification to the Commission – Scope of the obligation – Need to notify aid measures at the draft stage (Art. 88(3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 2 and 3) (see paras 228-230, 234-236)

5. State aid – Commission decision finding aid unlawful and ordering its recovery – Aid not yet paid (Art. 88(3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras 239, 241, 250-251)

6. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Aid granted in breach of the procedural rules of Article 88 EC – Possible legitimate expectation on the part of the beneficiaries – Protection – Conditions and limits (Art. 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras 269-271, 275-276)

7. State aid – Commission decision not to raise objections to a national measure – Legitimate expectation of the beneficiary that an extension of the said measure is lawful – None (Art. 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras 283-284, 288)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/408/EC of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA 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 23, 38-41

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 February 2008 (Case R 809/2007‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between Abbott Laboratories and aRigen, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>11

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 6 February 2008 (Case R 809/2007-2);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of Abbott Laboratories.
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 distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3)) (see paras 21-22, 34, 42-44)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Exception (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(3)) (see para. 43)

3. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – Aim (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see para. 50)

4. Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – Previous decision-making practice of the Office (see paras 62-64)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 August 2008 (Case R 488/2008-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark DYNAMIC HD as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Imagion 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 42, 51-53

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 July 2008 (Case R 759/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Angel Jiménez Muñoz and SLV Elektronik GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 July 2008 (Case R 759/2007-4) in so far as concerns the goods ‘mains‑operated lights, lighting apparatus and installations, stage effects lighting apparatus; electric lamps; individual parts for the aforesaid goods’ in Class 11;

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.