ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T‑218/09)

‛Languages — Notices of open competition for the recruitment of assistants — Language of the tests — Choice of second language from three official languages’

1. Officials — Competitions — Running of an open competition — Languages of participation in tests — Equal treatment — Requirement of specific linguistic knowledge — Statement of reasons — Justification having regard to the interests of the service — Observance of the principle of proportionality (Staff Regulations, Arts 1 quinquies, (1) and (6), 27, first para., and 28(f); Annex III, Art. 1(1)(f); Council Regulation No 1, Art. 1) (see paras 19-28)

2. Actions brought by officials — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Annulment of a notice of open competition — Legitimate expectations of the candidates selected — Results of the competition not called into question (Art. 266 TFEU; Staff Regulations, Art. 91) (see paras 36, 37)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Notices of open competitions EPSO/AST/91/09, to constitute a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants (AST 3) in the offset printing field, and EPSO/AST/92/09, to constitute a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants (AST 3) in the pre-press field, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 18 March 2009 (OJ 2009 C 63 A, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the notices of open competitions EPSO/AST/91/09, to constitute a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants (AST 3) in the offset printing field, and EPSO/AST/92/09, to constitute a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants (AST 3) in the pre-press field, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 18 March 2009;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 9 February 2010 – PromoCell bioscience alive v OHIM (SupplementPack)

(Case T-113/09)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark SupplementPack – 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 31, 37, 42, 48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 January 2009 (Case R 996/2008‑4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign SupplementPack as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: PromoCell bioscience alive GmbH Biomedizinische Produkte Community trade mark sought: Word mark SupplementPack for goods and services in Classes 1, 3, 5, 41 and 42 – Application No 5433883 Decision of the Examiner: Application dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 September 2010 – Quinta do Portal v OHIM – Vallegre (PORTO ALEGRE)

(Case T-369/09)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark PORTO ALEGRE – Earlier national word mark VISTA ALEGRE – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) 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 207/2009, Art. 53(1)(a)) (see paras 19, 30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Case R 1012/2008-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA and Sociedade Quinta do Portal SA.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: Word mark PORTO ALEGRE for goods in Class 33 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Sociedade Quinta do Portal, SA Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA Trade mark of the party seeking cancellation: Earlier Portuguese word mark VISTA ALEGRE for goods in Class 33 Decision of the Cancellation Division: Community word mark PORTO ALEGRE declared invalid Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 March 2010 – Eliza v OHIM – Went Computing Consultancy Group (eliza)

(Case T-130/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark incorporating the word eliza – Earlier Community word mark ELISE – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Refusal of registration – 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 25, 43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2008 (Case R 1244/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Went Computing Consultancy Group BV and Eliza Corp.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Eliza Corporation Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark eliza, for goods and services in Classes 9, 37 and 42 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Went Computing Consultancy Group BV Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration of the word mark ELISE for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2010 – Vidieffe v OHIM – Ellis International Group (GOTHA)

(Case T-169/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark GOTHA – Earlier Community figurative mark gotcha – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Weighting of the elements of similarity or difference between the signs – Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the marketing conditions of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 35)

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 para. 58)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 February 2009 (Case R 657/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Perry Ellis International Group Holdings, Ltd and Vidieffe Srl.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Vidieffe Srl Community trade mark sought: Word mark GOTHA for goods in Classes 18 and 25 – Application No 3665957 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings, Ltd Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade mark gotcha (No 2896199) for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed in its entirety Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal partially upheld





Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 February 2009 (Case R 657/2008-1), in so far as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division, inasmuch as that decision rejected the opposition, first, in respect of ‘[leather and imitations of leather] goods (not included in other classes); trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks’ in Class 18 and, second, in respect of all the goods in Class 25;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 October 2010 – Commission v Gal‑Or

(Case T-136/09)

Arbitration clause – Contract for financial assistance concluded under a specific research and technological development programme in the field of non‑nuclear energy – Failure to comply with the contract – Reimbursement of advance payments – Default interest – Default procedure

1. Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature defined exclusively by Article 238 EC and the arbitration clause – Debt owing to the Commission not directly originating in contractual relations, but in the implementation of judgments delivered by a national court – General Court having no jurisdiction (Arts 238 EC and 240 EC) (see paras 32-35)

2. Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Contract granting Community financial assistance for a research, technological development and demonstration project – Non-compliance with obligations under the contract – Right of the Commission to repayment of the advance, with interest for delay (Art. 238 EC; Council Decision 94/806) (see paras 45-46, 62-63, 68-69)

Re:

ACTION on the basis of an arbitration clause, seeking an order that Mr Gal‑Or reimburse the amount of EUR 205 611 advanced to him by the Commission in the context of contract IN/0042/97, together with default interest, and for payment of default interest on the amount of EUR 9 231.25, which is the amount of the costs incurred in an action brought by Mr Gal-Or against the Commission before the courts in the Netherlands.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Mr Benjamin Gal-Or to pay to the European Commission the principal amount owing of EUR 205 611, together with interest at the rate of:

– 2.75% from 2 March 2003;

– 2.50% from 7 March 2003;

– 2.00% from 6 June 2003;

– 2.25% from 6 December 2005;

– 2.50% from 8 March 2006;

– 2.75% from 15 June 2006;

– 3.00% from 9 August 2006;

– 3.25% from 11 October 2006;

– 3.50% from 13 December 2006;

– 3.75% from 14 March 2007;

– 4.00% from 13 June 2007;

– 4.25% from 9 July 2008;

– 3.75% from 15 October 2008;

– 3.25% from 12 November 2008;

– 2.50% from 10 December 2008;

– 2.00% from 21 January 2009;

– 1.50% from 11 March 2009;

– 1.25% from 8 April 2009;

– 1.00% from 13 May 2009;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2010 – HIT Trading and Berkman Forwarding v Commission

(Case T-191/09)

Customs Union – Importation of compact fluorescent lamps with integrated electronic ballasts (CFL-i) from Pakistan – Post-clearance recovery of import duties – Application for remission of import duties – Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92

1. Own resources of the European Union – Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties – Conditions for not taking account of import duties set out in Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 62(1) and 220(2)(b)) (see paras 42-44, 53-61, 72-73)

2. Own resources of the European Union – Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties – No publication, by the Commission, of a notice to importers in the event of doubts as to the origin of goods likely to be subject to anti-dumping duties (Council Regulation No 2913/92) (see paras 79-81)

3. Own resources of the European Union – Repayment or remission of import duties – Fairness clause instituted by Article 239 of the Community Customs Code and Article 905 of implementing Regulation No 2454/93 – Particular situation – Concept (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 905) (see paras 91-92, 95-99)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 747 final of 12 February 2009, stating that post-clearance entry in the accounts of certain import duties was justified and that the remission of such duties was not justified (File reference: REC 01/08).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2010 – Storck v OHIM (Shape of a chocolate mouse)

(Case T-13/09)

Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark – Shape of a chocolate mouse – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Rights of the defence

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Three-dimensional mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2008 (Case R 185/2006-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate mouse.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: August Storck KG Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional mark, which represents a mouse made out of chocolate, for goods in Class 30 – Application No 4490447 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Word mark AK 47 for goods and services in Classes 9, 28 and 38 – Community trade mark No 3249381

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark at issue

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal:
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 February 2011 – Yorma’s v OHIM – Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (YORMA’S)

(Case T-213/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark including the word element ‘yorma’s’ – Earlier Community word mark NORMA – Relative ground for refusal – 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 26, 55, 86, 88)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 February 2009 (Case R 1879/2007-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG and Yorma’s AG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Yorma’s AG Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark composed of the word element yorma’s for services in Classes 35 and 42 – Application No 2048205 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark NORMA (Community trade mark No 213769) for goods in Classes 3, 5, 8, 16, 18, 21, 25, 28 to 36 and the commercial symbol NORMA used in the course of trade in Germany, and the figurative sign NORMA Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the appealed decision and rejection of the Community trade mark application





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 – Olymp Bezner v OHIM – Bellido (Olymp)

(Case T-203/09)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark OLYMP – Earlier national figurative mark OLIMPO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – 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)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds of invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier trade mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 8(1)(b) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 30, 60-62)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2009 (Case R 531/2008-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Miguel Bellido SA and Olymp Bezner GmbH & Co. KG.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: Word mark Olymp for goods in Class 25 – Application No 1158328 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Olymp Bezner GmbH & Co. KG Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Miguel Bellido, SA Trade mark of the party seeking cancellation: Spanish trade mark registration of the figurative mark OLIMPO for goods in Class 25 Decision of the Cancellation Division: Community trade mark concerned declared invalid Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 April 2011 – Sociedad Agricola Requingua v OHIM – Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Toro (TORO DE PIEDRA)

(Case T-358/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark TORO DE PIEDRA – Earlier Community figurative mark D. ORIGEN TORO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Right to be heard – Duty to state reasons – Article 75 of Regulation 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 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 27, 29, 40, 42)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Decisions of the Office – Observance of the rights of the defence – Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see paras 51-52)

3. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 – Scope identical to that of Article 253 EC (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 57)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Case R 1117/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Toro and Sociedad Agricola Requingua Ltda.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Sociedad Agricola Requingua Ltda Community trade mark sought: Word mark TORO DE PIEDRA for goods in Class 33 – Application No 4000501 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Toro Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration of the figurative mark D. ORIGEN TORO for goods in Class 33; Spanish trade mark registration of the figurative mark Denominación de Origen TORO for goods in Class 33 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2011 – ATB Norte v OHIM – Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER)

(Case T-477/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark BRICO CENTER – Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro – 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 25, 33-34, 57, 66-67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 (Case R 1008/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bricocenter Italia Srl Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark BRICO CENTER in respect of services in Class 35 – Application No 4934121 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Earlier figurative Community trade marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro (No 989046) and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro (No 3262623) in respect of services in Classes 35, 37 and 39 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled; opposition dismissed in its entirety





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 24 September 2009 (Case R 1008/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011 – Omnicare v OHIM – Astellas Pharma (OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH)

(Case T-289/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH – Earlier national figurative mark OMNICARE – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Similarity of the services – Genuine use of the earlier mark

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 para. 95)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 May 2009 (Case R 401/2008-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH and Omnicare, Inc.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;