ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD financing — Grant of aids and premiums — Obligation of Member States to organise an effective system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks — Unreliable controls — Disallowance by the funds (Council Regulation No 1782/2003, Art. 20; Commission Regulation No 796/2004, Art. 69(2)) (see paras 20-23, 44, 45, 57, 58, 68)

2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Single payment scheme and other ‘surface’ aid schemes — Intentional error in declaration of area — National legislation making application of sanctions subject to the prior existence of a court decision confirming intentional non-compliance — Legislation making it practically impossible to implement EU legislation — Not permissible — Infringement of the principle of the presumption of innocence — None — Administrative sanctions (Commission Regulation No 796/2004, Art. 53) (see paras 81, 82, 86, 91-93)

3. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 102, 107, 150)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF — Financial corrections — Addressee State having been closely associated with the process of drawing up the decision — Infringement of the duty to state reasons — None (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 109-111)

5. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof — Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (Council Regulations No 1258/1999, Arts 7(4), fourth para., and No 1290/2005, Art. 31(2)) (see paras 138-142)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision 2010/152/EU of 11 March 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 63, p. 7), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Poland.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Leifheit v OHIM — Vermop Salmon (Twist System)

(Case T-334/10)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Twist System — Earlier Community word marks TWIX and TWIXTER — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Invalidity proceedings concerning relative grounds for refusal — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties — Account taken of criteria for applying the provisions relied upon (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 63(1), and 76(1)) (see paras 20, 21, 23)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 33, 44)

3. 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 35)

4. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Word mark Twist System — Word marks TWIX and TWIXTER (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 37-45)

5. 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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2010 (Joined Cases R 924/2009-1 and R 1013/2009-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Vermop Salmon GmbH and Leifheit AG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark consisting in the shape of a bottle with an embossed pattern (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 22-41)

2. Community trade mark — Registration procedure — Examination of the application — Mark containing an element devoid of distinctive character — Power of the Office to demand a statement relating to that element — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 37(2)) (see para. 48)

3. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence) (see paras 53-56)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2010 (Case R 1516/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a bottle with an embossed pattern as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Adelholzener Alpenquellen GmbH to pay the costs.
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 — Concept of ‘part of goods or services’ concerned by registration (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 21-23)

2. Community trade mark — Registration procedure — Withdrawal, restriction and amendment of the trade mark application — Application to restrict the list of goods and services — Procedures — Application having to be made expressly and unconditionally (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 43; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 13) (see para. 39)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 September 2010 (Case R 708/2010-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Janssen-Cilag GmbH and Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs 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 21 September 2010 (Case R 708/2010-4);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH;

3. Orders Janssen-Cilag GmbH to bear its own costs.
The criterion relating to the selectivity of a measure makes it possible to distinguish between State aid and general measures of tax or economic policy implemented by the Member States. Thus, for the condition of selectivity to be satisfied, a category of undertakings which are exclusively favoured by the measure at issue must be identified in all cases.

In that regard, Article 87(1) EC requires assessment as to whether, under a given legal regime, a State measure is such as to favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods in comparison with other undertakings which are in a legal and factual situation that is comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the said regime. Where the measure at issue, even though it constitutes a derogation from the common or ‘normal’ tax regime, is potentially available to all undertakings, it is not possible to compare, in the light of the objective pursued by the common or ‘normal’ regime, the legal and factual situation of undertakings which are able to benefit from the measure with that of undertakings which cannot benefit from it. It follows that, in such a situation, the mere finding that a derogation from the common or normal tax regime has been provided for cannot give rise to selectivity.

Furthermore, it is for the Commission to prove that a measure creates differences between undertakings which, with regard to the objective pursued, are in a comparable factual and legal situation.

(see paras 34, 43-46)
As regards the relative scope of judgments by which measures are annulled, the annulment of an individual decision has an erga omnes effect and is binding on everyone, but, unlike the annulment of an act of general application. A decision adopted in a competition matter with respect to several undertakings, although drafted and published in the form of a single decision, must be seen as a set of individual decisions finding that each of the addressees is guilty of the infringement or infringements of which they are accused and imposing on them, where appropriate, a fine. In that regard, if an addressee of a decision decides to bring an action for annulment, the matter to be tried by the EU judicature relates only to those aspects of the decision which concern that addressee, whereas aspects concerning other addressees do not form part of the matter to be tried. As to the remainder, the decision remains therefore binding on those addressees which have not applied for its annulment.

In competition matters, only an undertaking which has cooperated with the Commission on the basis of the Leniency Notice can be granted, under that notice, a reduction of the fine which would have been imposed without that cooperation. That reduction cannot be extended to a company which, for part of the duration of the infringement in question, had formed part of the economic unit constituted by an undertaking, but no longer formed part of it at the time when the undertaking cooperated with the Commission. In the light of the objective pursued by the Leniency Notice, consisting in promoting the detection of conduct contrary to EU competition law, and in order to ensure effective application of that law, there is nothing to justify extending a fine reduction granted to an undertaking in respect of its cooperation with the Commission to an undertaking which, whilst having controlled, in the past, the area of activity involved in the infringement in question, did not itself contribute to detection of the infringement.

The criterion that must be taken into consideration in order to assess whether leniency should be granted to an undertaking is its effective contribution to the detection or establishment of the infringement. That leniency is granted to an undertaking, that is to say the economic unit which exists at the time that the leniency application is submitted to the Commission. In that respect, exclusion from the benefit of leniency applies both in respect of a former subsidiary when a leniency application has been made by its former parent company and of a former parent company following a leniency application made by its former subsidiary. Not extending that benefit to companies not entitled thereto does infringe either the principle of sound administration and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, or the principles of equal treatment and fairness.

(see paras 152-154, 157, 159, 171)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 February 2015 — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf (Representation of the head of a wolf)

(Case T‑570/10 RENV)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark representing a wolf’s head — Earlier national and international figurative marks WOLF Jardin and Outils WOLF — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Detriment to the distinctive character of the earlier mark — Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 38)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 47, 50, 53)

3. 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Link between the marks — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 48, 49)

4. 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 51, 52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2010 (Case R 425/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Société Elmar Wolf and Environmental Manufacturing LLP.

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 October 2010 (Case R 425/2010-2);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs before the General Court and the Court of Justice, and half of those incurred by Environmental Manufacturing LLP before the General Court and the Court of Justice;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture — Approximation of laws — Placing of plant protection products on the market — Directive 91/414 — Procedure for adding the active substances of those products to Annex I to that directive — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Scope (Council Directive 91/414, Annex I) (see paras 24-27)

2. Agriculture — Approximation of laws — Placing of plant protection products on the market — Directive 91/414 — Commission decision on the non-registration of an active substance in Annex I to that directive — Lack of sufficient information to conclude that no risks present — No manifest error of assessment — No infringement of the principle of sound administration or of defence rights (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 850/2004, Art. 3(3); Commission Regulation No 33/2008, Art. 15; Council Directive 91/414, Art. 5(1) and (2), and Annexes I and II) (see paras 31-48)

3. Agriculture — Approximation of laws — Placing of plant protection products on the market — Directive 91/414 — Commission decision on the non-registration of an active substance in Annex I to that directive — No infringement of the principle of non-discrimination (Council Directive 91/414, Art. 5(1), and Annex I) (see paras 52-59)

4. Agriculture — Approximation of laws — Placing of plant protection products on the market — Directive 91/414 — Commission decision on the non-registration of an active substance in Annex I to that directive — Lack of sufficient information to conclude that no risks present — No breach of principle of proportionality (Council Directive 91/414, Art. 5(1), and Annex I) (see paras 63-74)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/355/EU of 25 June 2010 concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ 2010 L 160, p. 30).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dow AgroSciences Ltd and Dintec Agroquímica — Produtos Químicos, Lda to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2011 – Timehouse v OHIM (Shape of a watch with jagged edges)

(Case T-235/10)

Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional mark – Shape of a watch with jagged edges – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 35-36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2011 (Case R 0942/2009‑1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a watch as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2011 – SIMS – École de ski internationale v OHIM – SNMSF (esf école du ski français)

(Case T-41/10)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community figurative mark esf école du ski français – Absolute grounds for refusal – State emblem – Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 6ter of the Paris Convention – Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public – Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks to be refused under the Paris Convention – Protection of emblems of States and international organisations – Extent of protection (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(h)) (see para. 20)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks to be refused under the Paris Convention – Protection of emblems of States and international organisations – Imitation from the heraldic point of view (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(h)) (see paras 21-25)

3. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(g) and (h) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(g) and (h) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 27, 37, 52-54, 63-64)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2009 (Case R 235/2009-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between the Syndicat international des moniteurs de ski – École de ski internationale (SIMS – École de ski internationale) and the Syndicat national des moniteurs du ski français (SNMSF).

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: Figurative mark esf école du ski français for goods and services in Classes 25, 28 and 41 (Community trade mark No 4624987 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Syndicat national des moniteurs du ski français (SNMSF) Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Syndicat international des moniteurs de ski – Ecole de ski internationale (SIMS – Ecole de ski internationale) Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for declaration of invalidity dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Syndicat international des moniteurs de ski – École de ski internationale (SIMS – École de ski internationale) to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 – Seven v OHIM – Seven for all mankind (SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND)

(Case T-176/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND – Earlier Community and international figurative marks containing the word element ‘seven’ – Relative ground for refusal – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) and (5) 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50, 55)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 January 2010 (Case R 1514/2008 2) relating to opposition proceedings between Seven SpA and Seven for all Mankind LLC.

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 28 January 2010 (Case R 1514/2008 2);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Seven SpA in the proceedings before the General Court and those incurred by Seven SpA for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2011 – Meica v OHIM – TofuTown.com (TOFUKING)

(Case T-99/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for the Community trade mark TOFUKING – Earlier national word mark King – Earlier national and Community word marks Curry King – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 31-35, 44-49)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2010 (Case R 63/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co KG and TofuTown.com GmbH.

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 7 January 2010 (Case R 63/2009-4);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and those incurred by Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co KG;