ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 44, 47-48

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2006 (Case R 171/2005-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Manuel Revert & Cía, SA, and Redcats SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Redcats 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 para. 40

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 1127/2004-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Late Editions Ltd and Tsakiris-Mallas EPE (now Tsakiris-Mallas AE).

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Tsakiris-Mallas AE to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 31

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 October 2006 (Case R 1364/2005-2) concerning opposition proceedings between VKR Holding A/S and Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV.

Information relating to the case

>lt>10

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 29-33, 39

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 July 2006 (Case R 1388/2005-4) concerning an application to register the word mark HONEYCOMB as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Neoperl Servisys AG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Aid for restructuring and conversion in the wine sector – Fixing of the definitive financial allocations made to Member States

(Council Regulation No 1493/1999, Art. 14(1) and (2); Commission Regulation No 1227/2000, Art. 16(1))

Summary

It is apparent from the wording of Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1227/2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards production potential as well as from the general scheme and purpose of the rules of which it forms part, that the time-limit laid down by that article is a mandatory time-limit. The binding nature of the time-limit of 10 July, by which Member States must state the expenditure incurred and validated at 30 June and the total area concerned, is clearly borne out by the function of that time-limit, namely to make it possible for the allocations provided for in Article 14(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1493/1999 to be determined effectively so that the indicative financial allocations are adapted, inter alia in view of real expenditure.

The binding nature of that time-limit is also borne out by the objective pursued by the statement of expenditure and the areas concerned as that expenditure is linked to the financial year in progress. The date of 10 July is linked to that of 15 October in the same year and it was established to make it possible for the Commission to have the necessary time to adopt and publish the decision fixing the definitive financial allocations provided for in Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1493/1999 before 15 October. In order to enable Member States to make those payments, relating to the expenditure declared under Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1227/2000, before the end of the current financial year and to obtain reimbursement thereof by the Commission before the end of the budgetary year, under the budget headings available for that financial year, the effectiveness of the provisions in question implies that the decision fixing the definitive financial allocations to the Member States for the financial year must be adopted before the end of that year, namely 15 October.

(see paras 25, 28-31, 35)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 — Zero Industry v OHIM — zero Germany (zerorh+)

(Case T-400/06)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community mark zerorh+ — Earlier national figurative and word marks zero — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity between products — 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 25-28, 77-89)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2006 (Case R 958/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between zero Germany GmbH & Co. KG and Zero Industry Srl.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Zero Industry Srl Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark ‘zerorh+’ for goods in Classes 9, 18 and 25 — Application No 2004547 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: zero Germany GmbH & Co. KG, formerly zero International Holding GmbH & Co. KG Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative mark ‘zero’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 and the national word mark ‘zero’ for goods in Class 9 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 Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — Euro-Information v OHIM (CYBERCREDIT, CYBERGESTION, CYBERGUICHET, CYBERBOURSE and CYBERHOME)

(Joined Cases T-211/06, T-213/06, T-245/06, T-155/07 and T-178/07)

‛Community trade mark — Applications for Community word marks CYBERCREDIT, CYBERGESTION, CYBERGUICHET, CYBERBOURSE and CYBERHOME — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation 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 32-36, 42)

Re:

ACTIONS brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 May (Case R 0068/2006-1), 12 June (Case R 0066/2006-1), 5 July 2006 (Case R 0067/2006-1), 28 February (Case R 1046/2006-1) and (Case R 0067/2006-1), concerning registration of the signs CYBERGESTION (Case T-213/06), CYBERCREDIT (Case T-211/06), CYBERGUICHET (Case T-245/06), CYBERBOURSE (Case T-155/07) and CYBERHOME (Case T-178/07) as Community trade marks.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade marks: Européenne de traitement de l’information (Euro-Information) Community trade marks concerned: Word marks CYBERCREDIT, CYBERGESTION, CYBERGUICHET, CYBERBOURSE and CYBERHOME in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 38 (Application Nos 4114336, 4114716, 4114575, 4114682 and 4114666) Decision of the examiner: Registrations refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeals dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;
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 34, 43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 January 2006 (Case R 217/2004-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Antonio Segura Sánchez and Esotrade SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Case T-212/06

Bowland Dairy Products Ltd

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Action for damages — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Rapid alert system — Supplementary notification — Competence of the national authorities — Commission’s opinion not binding — Modification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Inadmissibility’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 29 October 2009 II ‐ 4075

Summary of the Judgment

Actions for damages — Subject-matter — Claim for compensation for damage caused by a position taken by the Commission in the context of the rapid alert system concerning food safety

Although Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance authorises, in certain circumstances, new pleas in law to be introduced in the course of proceedings, that provision cannot in any circumstances be interpreted as authorising the applicant to bring new claims before the Court and thereby to modify the subject-matter of the proceedings. In the context of an action for damages, the defendant institution’s act or conduct said to be the cause of the alleged loss forms part of the subject-matter of an action for damages and must be specified in the application. For the same reason, the form of order sought in such an action must be understood as referring to compensation for the loss allegedly caused by the act or conduct complained of in the application. (see paras 36, 38)

In order for the Community to incur non-contractual liability, a number of conditions must be satisfied, namely: the unlawfulness of the conduct alleged against the institutions, the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between the alleged conduct and the damage complained of. If any one of those conditions is not satisfied, the action must be dismissed in its entirety and it is unnecessary to consider the other conditions. (see para. 37)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Admissibility – Decision imposing a fine for infringement of the competition rules – Action seeking to obtain reimbursement of default interest borne by an undertaking by reason of payment of the fine – Inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 23-26)

2. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement – Undertakings that may be held responsible for participating in an overall cartel – Criteria – Burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 61-62, 64)

3. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances – Passive or ‘follow-my-leader’ role of the undertaking – Criteria for assessment (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, Section 3, first indent) (see paras 73-74, 79)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part 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), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Sets the amount of the fine imposed by Article 2(l) 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) at EUR 9.18 million;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission, Low & Bonar plc and Bonar Technical Fabrics NV each to bear their own costs.
In proceedings for breach of the competition rules, respect for the rights of the defence requires that the undertaking concerned must have been afforded the opportunity, during the administrative procedure initiated before the Commission, to make known its views on the truth and relevance of the facts and circumstances alleged and on the documents used by the Commission to support its claim that there has been an infringement of the Treaty. Likewise, given its importance, the statement of objections must specify unequivocally the legal person on whom fines may be imposed and be addressed to that person. It is also necessary that the statement of objections indicate in which capacity an undertaking is called on to answer the allegations.

The Commission’s decision is not necessarily required to be an exact replica of the statement of objections. Thus it is only if the final decision alleges that the undertakings concerned have committed infringements other than those referred to in the statement of objections or takes into consideration different facts that there will be an infringement of the rights of the defence. That is not the case where the alleged differences between the statement of objections and the final decision do not concern any conduct other than that in respect of which the undertakings concerned had already submitted observations and are therefore unrelated to any new complaint.

The Commission does not fulfil its obligations where it does not indicate in the statement of objections in what capacity an undertaking is being accused of infringement and where, from the terms of the statement of objections, that undertaking cannot predict that the Commission intends, in its final decision, to impute the infringement to it on the basis of its direct involvement in the activities of the cartel and of its capacity as parent company by reason of the presumption of actual exercise of a decisive influence over the conduct of its subsidiary, which it is for the undertaking to rebut. Where the statement of objections does not enable the undertaking to take cognisance of the objection based on its indirect involvement in the activities of the cartel, the latter is not placed in a position effectively to defend itself in that respect during the administrative procedure.

The mere fact that the Commission has indicated in general terms in the statement of objections that it holds parent companies liable for the conduct of their subsidiaries and that the undertaking knew that it was the 100% parent of its subsidiary cannot suffice for the Commission to be considered to have discharged its obligation to indicate in the statement of objections in which capacity the undertaking was being called on to answer the allegations.

(see paras 22-23, 29-31)
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Varying duties imposed on a series of undertakings — Admissibility limited, for each undertaking, to the provisions of the regulation concerning imports arising from its production (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 85/2006) (see paras 27-29)

2. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Imposition of a variable duty calculated by reference to a minimum import price — Determination of the reference minimum price, while complying with the minimum duty rule, by comparing a minimum import price without dumping with a minimum import price not causing injury — Legality (Council Regulations No 384/96, Art. 9(4), No 85/2006, Art. 1(5), and No 1225/2009, Art. 9(4)) (see paras 39-42)

3. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Imposition of a fixed duty — Determination, while complying with the lesser duty rule, by comparing a weighted average dumping margin with a weighted average injury margin — Comparison distorted by reason of an erroneous calculation of the weighted average dumping margin — Illegality (Council Regulations Nos 384/96, Art. 9(4), No 85/2006, Art. 1(5), and No 1225/2009, Art. 9(4)) (see paras 45-49, 52, 55, 58)

4. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Imposition of a variable duty — Calculation by reference to a minimum import price — Determination of that price using a minimum import price without dumping taking account of production costs in the non-member country concerned — Conversion into euros of the production cost expressed in national currency — Use of an average conversion rate over an insufficient period having regard to the production cycle of the product concerned — Illegality (Council Regulations No 384/96, Arts 2(5), and 9(4), No 85/2006, Art. 1(5), and No 1225/2009, Arts 2(5), and 9(4)) (see paras 75, 79-82)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Conditions — Use of the sign in trade — Local significance of the sign — Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(4))

2. Community trade mark — Decisions of OHIM — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision making practice

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Word and figurative marks BUD — Appellations ‘bud’

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(4))

Summary

1. The object of the condition laid down in Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark relating to use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance is to limit conflicts between signs by preventing an earlier right which is not sufficiently definite — that is to say, important and significant in the course of trade — from preventing registration of a new Community trade mark. A right of opposition of that kind must be reserved to signs with a real and actual presence on their relevant market. To be capable of preventing registration of a new sign, the sign relied on in opposition must actually be used in a sufficiently significant manner in the course of trade and its geographical extent must not be merely local, which implies, where the territory in which that sign is protected may be regarded as other than local, that the sign must be used in a substantial part of that territory. In order to ascertain whether that is the case, account must be taken of the duration and intensity of the use of the sign as a distinctive element for its addressees, namely purchasers and consumers as well as suppliers and competitors. In that regard, the use made of the sign in advertising and commercial correspondence is of particular relevance. In addition, the condition relating to use in the course of trade must be assessed separately for each of the territories in which the right relied on in support of the opposition is protected. Finally, use of the sign in the course of trade must be shown to have occurred before the date of the application for registration of the Community trade mark.

(see para. 47)

2. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 53)

3. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 55-57, 64, 66)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2007 – Charlott v OHIM – Charlo (Charlott France Entre Luxe et Tradition)

(Case T-169/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for figurative Community trade mark Charlott France Entre Luxe et Tradition – Earlier figurative national mark Charlot – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3) (see paras 37, 64)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2006 (Case R 223/2005‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Charlo – Confecções para Homens, Artigos de Lã e Outros SA and Charlott SARL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Charlott SARL Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Charlott France Entre Luxe et Tradition for goods in Class 25 – Application No 1853274 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Charlo – Confecções para Homens, Artigos de Lã e Outros SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark Charlot for goods in Class 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division set aside





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Charlott SARL to pay the costs, except those incurred by the intervener;
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)

5 March 2008

Case T-414/06 P

Philippe Combescot

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Civil service – Officials – Inadmissibility of the action before the Civil Service Tribunal – Time-limit for bringing an action)

Application: Appeal against the judgment of the European Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2006 in Case F-114/05 Combescot v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-1-115 and II‑A‑1‑435, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Philippe Combescot is ordered to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Time-limits – Express rejection of complaint adopted within the period for replying but not notified

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(3))

Under the system of remedies established by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, once the four-month period for replying referred to in Article 90(2) has expired, an express rejection adopted within that period but not notified amounts to an implied rejection opening a period of three months for the bringing of proceedings.

That conclusion is entirely consistent with the purpose of time-limits for complaints and actions, the aim being to ensure, within the Community institutions, the legal certainty which is essential to their proper functioning by preventing Community measures which produce legal effects from being called in question indefinitely. Those time‑limits are a matter of public policy and are not subject to the discretion of the parties or the Court.

Moreover, that conclusion in no way prejudices the official’s right to legal protection or his right to a fair hearing, which are adequately safeguarded and protected by his ability to bring an action against the act adversely affecting him within three months of the implied rejection of his complaint.

(see paras 39, 43-44)

See: 79/70 Müllers v ESC [1971] ECR 689, para. 18; 40/71 Richez-Parise v Commission [1972] ECR 73, para. 6; 227/83 Moussis v Commission [1984] ECR 3133, para. 12