ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 – Stempher and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher v Commission

(Case T-68/06)

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Plastic industrial bags sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Fines – Limitation period – Proof of the infringement

1. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding an infringement – Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission – Extent of the burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 25-26)

2. Competition – Administrative procedure – Time-limit with regard to proceedings – Consequences (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 25) (see para. 42)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part and for amendment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 – Industrial bags).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 – Industrial bags) in so far as it concerns Stempher BV and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher CV;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Decision on the appeal – Obligation of the Board of Appeal – Scope

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 62(1))

2. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Possibility for the Court of First Instance to alter the contested decision

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(2) and (3))

Summary

1. Pursuant to the first sentence of Article 62(1) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, ‘[f]ollowing the examination as to the allowability of the appeal, the Board of Appeal shall decide on the appeal’. That obligation must be understood to mean that the Board of Appeal is obliged to rule on each of the heads of claim submitted for its consideration in its entirety, either by upholding it, rejecting it as inadmissible or rejecting it on substantive grounds. Since disregard of that obligation can affect the content of the Board of Appeal’s decision, this is a question of an essential procedural requirement, the infringement of which can be raised by the Court of its own motion.

(see para. 20)

2. Although Article 63(3) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark enables the Court to alter the decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), that possibility is, in principle, limited to situations in which the case has reached a stage appropriate for judicial adjudication. The fact that the Board of Appeal failed to rule on one of the applicant’s heads of claim means that that stage had not been reached. Alteration of such a decision would in effect imply that the Court was deciding for the first time on the substance of the pleas on which the Board of Appeal had failed to rule. Such a determination does not, however, fall within the jurisdiction of the Court as laid down in Article 63(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94.

(see para. 28)
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 25-26, 35, 37

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 March 2007 (Joined Cases R 165/2006-2 and R 194/2006-2) concerning an opposition procedure between Ugly Inc. and Group Lottuss Corp., SL.

Information relating to the case

>lt>10

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Group Lottuss Corp., SL to bear all its own costs, to pay four fifths of the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and to pay four fifths of the costs of Ugly Inc.;

3. Orders Ugly Inc. to bear one fifth of its own costs and to pay one fifth of OHIM’s 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

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 21, 25-27, 37

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 December 2006 (Case R 1048/2004-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BioGeneriX as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>11

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 20 December 2006 (Case R 1048/2004-4), in so far as chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs, falling within Class 1, are concerned;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders ratiopharm GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay half of OHIM’s costs. OHIM is ordered to bear the other half of its 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 24, 28

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2007 (Case R 493/2006-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Ebro Puleva, SA and Luis Berenguel, SL.

Information relating to the case

>lt>16

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ebro Puleva, SA 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 37-38, 51, 55-56

)

Subject of the case

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

>lt>17

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 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;

3. Orders Metronia 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 devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 32

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2007 (Case R 1471/2006-2), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word mark ANEW ALTERNATIVE.

Information relating to the case

>lt>11

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Avon Products, Inc. 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 29, 58

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 August 2007 (Case R 1545/2006‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Life Sciences Partners Perstock NV and Bayern Innovativ – Bayerische Gesellschaft für Innovation und Wissenstransfer mbH.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bayern Innovativ – Bayerische Gesellschaft für Innovation und Wissenstransfer mbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. 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))

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Signs capable of constituting a mark

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 4 and 7(1)(b))

Summary

1. Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, under which ‘trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character’ are not to be registered, requires the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to determine, through an examination, on the facts, of the potential capacity of the sign at issue, whether the sign is incapable of distinguishing, in the eyes of the relevant public, the goods of the applicant for the trade mark from those of a different origin, since a minimum degree of distinctiveness is sufficient to prevent application of the absolute ground for refusal provided for in Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation. For the purposes of such an assessment, it is for OHIM, subject to review by the Court of First Instance, to have regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances.

(see paras 39-40)

2. The refusal, as a matter of definition, to accept that single letters can have any distinctive character, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, is contrary to the wording of Article 4 of that regulation, which ranks letters as being among the signs, capable of being represented graphically, of which a mark may consist, provided that such signs are capable of distinguishing the goods and services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.

Furthermore, it is apparent from the case-law that Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 draws no distinction between the different categories of trade mark and that the criteria for assessment of the distinctive character of trade marks which consist of a single letter are the same as those applicable to the other categories of trade mark.

In order to have the minimum degree of distinctiveness required under that provision, the mark concerned must simply appear prima facie capable of enabling the relevant public to identify the origin of the goods or services covered by the Community trade mark application and to distinguish them, without any possibility of confusion, from those of a different origin.

(see paras 45-47)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 16 September 2009 — JanSport Apparel v OHIM (BUILT TO RESIST)

(Case T-80/07)

‛Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark BUILT TO RESIST — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

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 24-29, 41-47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of 12 January 2007 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1090/2006-2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BUILT TO RESIST as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: JanSport Apparel Corp. Community trade mark sought: National word mark ‘BUILT TO RESIST’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 18 and 25 — Application No 2937522 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 8 July 2009 — DSV Road v Commission

(Case T-219/07)

‛Customs union — Importation of diskettes originating in Thailand — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Application for remission of import duties — Articles 220(2)(b) and 239 of Regulation (EC) No 2913/92’

1. Own resources of the European Communities — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b)); Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 81(6)) (see paras 35-38, 40)

2. Own resources of the European Communities — Repayment or remission of import duties — Fairness clause established by Article 239 of the Community Customs Code (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 904(c)) (see paras 55-57)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission decision of 24 April 2007 informing the Belgian authorities that they may proceed with post-clearance recovery of import duties on diskettes originating in Thailand and that there are no grounds for granting remission of those duties (file reference REC 05/02).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;
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 26-32

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Three actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2007 (Cases R 1276/2006-4, R 1277/2006-4 and R 1278/2006-4), concerning the applications for registration of the word marks 222, 333 and 555 as Community trade marks.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders KEK Diavlos to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Challenge by the Member State concerned – Burden of proof – Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (Council Regulation No 729/70) (see paras 36-39)

2. Agriculture – EAGGF – Grant of aid and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an effective system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks – Spot checks over sufficient periods – Concept – Requirement that the subject not be aware in advance of a spot check or its unlikelihood during a predetermined period (Commission Regulation No 1535/2003, Arts 28 and 31) (see paras 64-65)

3. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Regulation prescribing specific control measures – No discretion of Member States – Non-implementation – Justification – Better effectiveness of another control system – Not permissible (Commission Regulation No 1535/2003) (see paras 70, 101)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment, in part, of Commission Decision 2007/243/EC of 18 April 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2007 L 106, p. 55).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Reference to the annex in support of arguments set out in the pleadings – Admissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 18-20)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the Parliament to take no action on a petition – Included (Arts 194 EC and 230EC) (see para. 21)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the Parliament to take no action on a petition (Art. 194 EC; European Parliament Regulation, Art. 191(6)) (see paras 23-30)

Subject of the case

Re:

ANNULMENT of the Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 20 June 2007 to file and take no further action on the petition submitted by the applicant on 7 February 2007 (Petition No 95/2007).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 20 June 2007 to file and take no further action on the petition submitted by Mr Ingo-Jens Tegebauer on 7 February 2007 (Petition No 95/2007);

2. Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Tegebauer.
Keywords



Keywords

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)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Union public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see paras 22, 90)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision, in a procedure for awarding a public service contract, not to accept a tender (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149) (see paras 94-96, 105)

3. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Misuse of powers – Concept (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 109)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Burden of proof – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 121-122)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for (i) annulment of the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2007 not to accept the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki in the context of the call for tenders relating to ‘Content interoperability for European eGovernment Services’ (OJ 2006 S 128) and also of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and (ii) damages.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 2 July 2008 – Ashoka v OHIM (DREAM IT, DO IT!)

(Case T-186/07)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark DREAM IT, DO IT! – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) 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 37-38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 March 2007 (Case R 635/2006-1) concerning the registration of the word mark DREAM IT, DO IT! as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Ashoka Community trade mark sought: Word mark DREAM IT, DO IT! for services in Classes 35, 36, 41 and 45 – Application No 3844792 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 (First Chamber) of 12 November 2008 – Weiler v OHIM – IQNet Association – The International Certification Network (Q2WEB)

(Case T-242/07)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark Q2WEB – Earlier Community word mark QWEB and earlier Community figurative mark QWEB Certified Site – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds of invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 8(1)(b) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 25, 33, 41-42, 44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2007 (Case R 893/2005-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between CISQ Federazione Certificazione Italiana Sistemi di Qualità Aziendali, then IQNet Association – The International Certification Network, and Mr D. Weiler.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: Word mark Q2WEB for goods in Classes 9, 35, 38 and 42 – mark No 2418150 Proprietor of the Community trade mark Dieter Weiler Party applying for cancellation: CISQ Federazione Certificazione Italiana Sistemi di Qualità Aziendali Trade marks of the party applying for cancellation: Word mark QWEB for goods and services in Class 42 (Community mark No 1772078), figurative mark QWEB for services in Classes 35, 38 and 42 (Community mark No 1871201) and word mark QWEBMARK for services in Classes 35, 38 and 42 (Community mark No 1771963) Decision of the Cancellation Division: Trade mark cancelled Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;