ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Determination of the normal value – Investigation – Refusal to grant market economy treatment – Rectification of the Commission’s position in the final information document – Possibility of the Commission subsequently returning to its initial decision, in the absence of new factors – Lawfulness – Conditions (Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 2(7)(c), second para., and 20) (see paras 37-41, 45, 48, 51-52)

2. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Anti-dumping proceeding – Rights of the defence – Communication by the Commission of final information to the undertakings – Legal nature (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 20(1), (2), (4) and (5)) (see paras 47-50)

3. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Anti-dumping proceeding – Access to the file – Confidential treatment of the matters in a complaint – Conditions (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 19(1) and (2)) (see paras 57-61)

4. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Anti-dumping proceeding – Rights of the defence – Communication by the Commission of final information to the undertakings – Transmission to the Council of the Commission’s proposal for definitive measures less than 10 days after that communication – Irregularity – Consequences for the validity of the regulation adopted by the Council (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 20(5)) (see paras 70-74, 76-90)

5. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Anti-dumping proceeding – Rights of the defence – Possibility of exporters offering undertakings within the time-limit laid down by Article 20(5) of Regulation No 384/96 submitting observations – Non-compliance with the time-limit by the Commission – Irregularity (Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 8 and 20(5)) (see paras 94-96)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China and Ukraine (OJ 2007 L 109, p. 12), in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards manufactured by the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China and Ukraine, in so far as they impose a definitive anti-dumping duty and collect definitively the provisional duty on ironing boards manufactured by Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products Co. Ltd;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products;

3. Orders the European Commission, Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd, Pirola SpA and Colombo New Scale SpA to bear their own costs.
The notion of a single infringement covers a situation in which several undertakings participated in an infringement in which continuous conduct in pursuit of a single economic aim was intended to distort competition, and also individual infringements linked to one another by the same object (all the elements sharing the same purpose) and the same subjects (the same undertakings, which are aware that they are participating in the common object).

The concept of a single objective cannot be determined by a general reference to the distortion of competition on the market concerned by the infringement, since an impact on competition, as object or effect, constitutes an essential element of any conduct covered by Article 81(1) EC. Such a definition of the concept of a single objective would deprive the concept of a single and continuous infringement of part of its meaning, since it would mean that different instances of conduct relating to a particular economic sector and prohibited by Article 81(1) EC would have to be systematically characterised as constituent elements of a single infringement. Thus, for the purposes of characterising various unlawful actions as a single and continuous infringement, it is necessary to establish whether they display a link of complementarity in that each of them is intended to deal with one or more consequences of the normal pattern of competition and, through interaction, contribute to the attainment of the set of anti-competitive effects desired by those responsible, within the framework of a global plan having a single objective. In that regard, it will be necessary to take into account any circumstance capable of establishing or of casting doubt on that link, such as the period of implementation, the content (including the methods used) and, correlatively, the objective of the various unlawful actions in question.

(see paras 141, 144)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 September 2019 –

Ireland and Aughinish Alumina v Commission

(Joined Cases T‑129/07 and T‑130/07)

(State aid — Directive 2003/96/EC — Excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Exemption from excise duty — Selective nature of the measure — Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection of 2001)

1. State aid — Concept — Selective nature of the measure — Derogation from the general tax system — Justification derived from the nature and general scheme of the system — Burden of proof — Exemption from excise duty on heavy fuel oil for alumina production — No evidence demonstrating that justification (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 55, 56, 60, 61, 65, 69-72, 89-93)

2. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Clear and precise statement of the pleas relied on — Similar requirements for submissions made in support of a plea — General reference to a joint declaration of the Council and of the Commission at the time of the adoption of a directive — Admissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 80-86)

3. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market — Aid for protection of the environment — Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection — Aid in the form of exemption from a tax — Criteria for assessment (Arts 6 and 87(3) EC; Commission notice 2001/C 37/03, point 51(1)) (see paras 102-109, 111)

Re:

Applications pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment, in whole or in part, of Commission Decision 2007/375/EC of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively (C 78/2001 (ex NN 22/01), C 79/2001 (ex NN 23/01), C 80/2001 (ex NN 26/01)) (OJ 2007 L 147, p. 29), in so far as it finds that State aid was granted by Ireland, from 1 January 2004, on the basis of the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Shannon region (Ireland), and in so far as it orders Ireland to recover the aid or to cancel or suspend its payment.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs in Case T‑129/07;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 5 November 2008 – Calzaturificio Frau v OHIM – Camper (Representation of a stylised arch with the surface in solid colour)

(Case T-304/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for a Community figurative mark representing a stylised arch with the surface in solid colour – Earlier Community figurative mark representing a stylised arch – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative ground 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 30, 33, 36-37, 40, 52)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see paras 57-58)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 June 2007 in Case R 768/2006-1 relating to opposition proceedings between Camper, SL and Calzaturificio Frau SpA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Calzaturificio Frau SpA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark representing a stylised arch with the surface in solid colour for goods in Classes 18 and 25 – Application No 3388097 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Camper, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish national tridimensional mark reproducing the shape of a shoe, for goods in Class 25, a series of English national figurative marks representing, in various formats, arches, for goods in Class 25, and two Community figurative marks, also in the shape of an arch for goods in Class 18 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially rejected Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled; application for registration dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 17 September 2008 – Prana Haus v OHIM (PRANAHAUS)

(Case T-226/07)

Community trade mark – Application for registration of the word mark PRANAHAUS – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – 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 31-35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 April 2007 (Case R 1611/2006-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark PRANAHAUS as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Prana Haus GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark PRANAHAUS for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 35 – Application No 4839916 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 18 December 2008 – Torres v OHIM – Sociedad Cooperativa del Campo San Ginés (TORRE DE BENÍTEZ)

(Case T-16/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community word mark TORRE DE BENÍTEZ – Earlier national, Community and international word and figurative marks evoking a number of towers – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion

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 46, 73)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 November 2006 (Case R 36/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Sociedad Cooperativa del Campo San Ginés.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Sociedad Cooperativa del Campo San Ginés Community trade mark sought: Word mark TORRE DE BENÍTEZ for goods in Class 33 – Application No 2438018 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Miguel Torres, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: International and national word mark Torres for goods in Class 33, and various other Community, national and international marks 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 (Eighth Chamber) of 10 December 2008 – MIP Metro v OHIM – Metronia (METRONIA)

(Case T-290/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative trade mark METRONIA – Earlier national figurative trade mark METRO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) 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 37-38, 51, 55-56)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1315/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Metronia, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Metronia, SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark METRONIA for goods in Class 9 and services in Classes 20, 28 and 41 – Application No 3387834 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark METRO for goods and services, inter alia, in Classes 9, 20, 28 and 41 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld, registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition dismissed; registration allowed





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 29 May 2007 (Case R 1315/2006-2);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 26 November 2008 – New Look v OHIM (NEW LOOK)

(Case T-435/07)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark NEW LOOK – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) 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(3)) (see paras 18, 23-26)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2007 (Case R 670/2007-2) relating to the registration of the word sign NEW LOOK as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: New Look Ltd Community trade mark sought: Word mark NEW LOOK for goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 25, 26 and 35 – Application No 2932606 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 28 January 2009 – Volkswagen v OHIM (TDI)

(Case T-174/07)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark TDI – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Lack of distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(1)(c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 62(2) of Regulation No 40/94 – Article 74(1) of Regulation 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 30, 33, 47, 49-51)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2007 (Case R 1479/2005‑1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign TDI as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Volkswagen AG Community trade mark sought: Word mark TDI for goods and services in classes 4, 7 and 37 – Application No 842302 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 (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2009 – Lange Uhren v OHIM (Geometric shapes on a watch-face)

(Case T-152/07)

Community trade mark – Application for a Community figurative mark – Geometric shapes on a watch-face – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Lack of distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Exception – Distinctive character acquired through use (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3)) (see paras 77, 82, 87-92, 130-136, 142-143)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2007 (Case R 1176/2005-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing geometric shapes on a watch-face.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Lange Uhren GmbH Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark representing geometric shapes on a watch-face for goods in Class 14 – Application No 2542694 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 (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 – GlaxoSmithkline and Others v OHIM – Serono Genetics Institute (FAMOXIN)

(Cases T-493/07, T-26/08 and T-27/08)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark FAMOXIN – Earlier national word marks LANOXIN – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Proof of use – Article 56(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009

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. 52(1)(a)) (see paras 50-57, 73-76)

Re:

Three actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 September 2007 (Case R 8/2007-1), 20 November 2007 (Case R 10/2007-1) and 19 November 2007 (Case R 9/2007-1), relating to cancellation proceedings between, on the one hand, GlaxoSmithkline SpA, Laboratórios Wellcome De Portugal L da and The Wellcome Foundation Ltd, and, on the other, Serono Genetics Institute SA.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: Community word mark FAMOXIN for goods and services in Class 5 – Application No 2491298 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Serono Genetics Institute SA Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: GlaxoSmithkline SpA ; Laboratórios Wellcome de Portugal, Lda ; and The Wellcome Foundation Ltd Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: National word mark LANOXIN for goods in Class 5 Decision of the Cancellation Division: Applications dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeals dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-493/07, T-26/08 and T-27/08 for the purposes of the present judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;
Judgment of the General Court (single judge) of 18 March 2010 – KEK Diavlos v Commission

(Case T-190/07)

Financial assistance for the European citizen information programme (Prince) – Project concerning preparation for the introduction of the euro in schools – Decision ordering reimbursement of the advance paid – Duty to state reasons – Error of assessment

Actions for annulment – Grounds – Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons – Error of assessment (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 36-39, 48, 50-52, 66-67, 70, 74, 77)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 465 Final of 23 February 2006 ordering the reimbursement of the advance, together with interest, paid under a contract for financial assistance, concluded under the Prince programme, for an operation entitled ‘The EURO – its genuine and essential impact on school children’ (Eurogenesis), concerning preparation for the introduction of the euro in schools.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2010 – Agrofert Holding v Commission

(Case T-111/07)

Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to a procedure concerning a merger between undertakings – Refusal to grant access

European Union – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 4(2), 1st to 3rd indents, 3 and 6) (see paras 58-61, 64, 76-77, 79-80, 89, 94-99, 101-104, 110-116, 124-129, 131-132, 141-142, 144)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of, first, the Commission’s decision of 2 August 2006 refusing the applicant access to documents concerning the notification and pre notification procedure in relation to the acquisition of Unipetrol by Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA (COMP/M.3543) and, second, Commission Decision D (2007) 1360 of 13 February 2007 confirming that refusal.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that the head of claim seeking annulment of the reply of the European Commission of 2 August 2006 and that requesting the Court to order the Commission to provide the applicant with the documents requested are inadmissible;

2. Annuls Commission Decision D (2007) 1360 of 13 February 2007 refusing access to documents in Case COMP/M.3543 concerning the merger between Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA and Unipetrol, exchanged between the Commission and the notifying parties and between the Commission and third parties, and refusing access to the internal documents and legal advice drawn up in that case;

3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs;