ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

State aid — Concept — Sale of an asset by a public body to a private person on preferential conditions — Included — Assessment according to the criterion of the private investor (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 45, 46)

2. State aid — Concept — Legal nature — Interpretation on the basis of objective factors — Judicial review –Scope (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 47, 48, 56)

3. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons — Distinguished from manifest error of assessment (Arts 230 EC and 253 EC) (see para. 68)

4. State aid — Concept — Assessment according to the criterion of the private investor — Transfer of an undertaking — Determination of a price — Preference to be given to the result of an open, transparent and unconditional tendering procedure rather than to an export report (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 76‑80, 86)

5. State aid — Concept — Assessment according to the criterion of the private investor — Transfer of an undertaking — Uncertain outcome and duration of an authorisation procedure not automatically implying the exclusion of a buyer by a private investor (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 88, 90, 100, 101)

6. State aid — Concept — Assessment according to the criterion of the private investor — Whether account to be taken, in determining the transfer price of an undertaking, of the risk represented by the existence of a statutory guarantee scheme benefiting the undertaking to be transferred — Not included (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 122, 128, 130, 131)

7. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Aid granted in breach of the procedural rules of Article 88(3) EC — Legitimate expectations entertained by the recipients — Legal certainty — Protection — Conditions and limits (Art. 88(3) EC) (see paras 152, 153)

8. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Aid to support or facilitate the economic development of certain regions or activities — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Limits — Strict interpretation of derogations (Art. 87(3)(a) and (c) EC) (see paras 158, 161)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement borne by the Commission — Extent of the burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 64, 111)

2. Union law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Presumption of innocence — Procedures in competition matters — Decision finding an infringement but not imposing a fine — Applicability (Art. 81(1) EC; Art. 6(2) EU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48(1)) (see paras 65-69)

3. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Means of proof — Reliance on a body of evidence — Degree of evidential value necessary as regards items of evidence viewed in isolation — Evidence based solely on the conduct of undertakings — Evidential obligations of undertakings disputing the reality of the infringement — Obligations of the Commission challenging the plausibility of the explanations proposed by the undertakings (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 70-73, 75, 81, 134)

4. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Agreements which continue to produce their effects after they have formally ceased to be in force — Application of Article 81 EC (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 97)

5. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Concerted practice — Parallel conduct — Presumption that a concertation exists — Limits — Refusal by national copyright management societies to allow a user established in another Member State direct access to their repertoire — Adverse effect on competition (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 110)

6. Actions for annulment — Judicial review — Limits on jurisdiction (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 156)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Samband tónskálda og eigenda flutningsréttar (STEF);

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Review of legality — Criteria — Account taken only of the factual and legal elements existing at the date on which the contested measure was adopted (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 68)

2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement borne by the Commission — Extent of the burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 81, 128)

3. Union law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Presumption of innocence — Procedures in competition matters — Decision finding an infringement but not imposing a fine — Applicability (Art. 81(1) EC; Art. 6(2) EU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48(1)) (see paras 82-86)

4. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Means of proof — Reliance on a body of evidence — Degree of evidential value necessary as regards items of evidence viewed in isolation — Evidence based solely on the conduct of undertakings — Evidential obligations of undertakings disputing the reality of the infringement — Obligations of the Commission challenging the plausibility of the explanations proposed by the undertakings (Art. 81(1)EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 87-91, 97, 151)

5. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Agreements which continue to produce their effects after they have formally ceased to be in force — Application of Article 81 EC (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 113)

6. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Concerted practice — Parallel conduct — Presumption that a concertation exists — Limits — Refusal by national copyright management societies to allow a user established in another Member State direct access to their repertoire — Adverse effect on competition (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 127)

7. Actions for annulment — Judicial review — Limits on jurisdiction (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 173)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CR;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission

(Case T‑171/08)

‛European Refugee Fund — Action to raise awareness and disseminate information concerning refugees who are victims of psychological trauma — ‘Traumatised refugees in the European Union: institutions, protection mechanisms and good practice’ project — Payment of the balance — Duty to state reasons — Principle of sound administration — Error of assessment’

1. EU budget — Community financial assistance — Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the aid — Financing covering only expenses actually incurred — No proof of the reality of the expenses declared — Ineligible expenses (Art. 317 TFEU) (see paras 60, 104, 115, 124, 155, 159)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision ordering partial repayment of financial assistance (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 69-71, 76)

3. EU budget — Community financial assistance — Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the aid — Obligation to produce documents linked to the carrying out of the project — Mandatory nature (Art. 317 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 81(1); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 104(1) and (2)) (see para. 87)

4. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Allegations of the applicant not supported by detailed documentary evidence — Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 136, 146)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission decision, enclosed in the letter of 7 March 2008, concerning the Commission’s partial non-recognition of the costs incurred by the applicant in the context of Grant Agreement JAI/2004/ERF/073 relating to Community financing of an action to raise awareness and disseminate information concerning refugees who are victims of psychological trauma.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismissses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 15 September 2009 – Parfums Christian Dior v OHIM – Consolidated Artists (MANGO adorably)

(Case T-308/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark MANGO adorably – Earlier national and international word marks J’ADORE and ADIORABLE – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Risk of unfair advantage being taken of the repute of the earlier marks – Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (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 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 49-50)

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 – Link between the marks (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 62-64)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2008 (Case R 1162/2007‑2) relating to opposition proceedings between Parfums Christian Dior and Consolidated Artists BV.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Consolidated Artists BV Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark MANGO adorably for goods in Class 3 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Parfums Christian Dior Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark registration No 33209849 of the word mark ADIORABLE for goods in Class 3; French trade mark registration No 94536564 of the word mark J’ADORE for various goods, amongst which goods in Class 3; international trade mark registration No 811001 of the word mark ADIORABLE for various goods, amongst which goods in Class 3; international trade mark registration No 687422 of the word mark J’ADORE for various goods, amongst which goods in Class 3 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2009 – Promat v OHIM – Prosima Comercial (PROSIMA PROSIMA COMERCIAL S.A.)

(Case T-71/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark PROSIMA PROSIMA COMERCIAL S.A. – Earlier national word mark PROMINA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Absence of similarity between the goods – 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94 Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 39, 42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 November 2007 (Case R 574/2007‑2) relating to opposition proceedings between Promat GmbH and Prosima Comercial, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Prosima Comercial, SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark PROSIMA PROSIMA COMERCIAL S.A. for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 11, 16, 17, 20, 22, 35 - 39, 41 and 42 – Application No 2423176 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Promat GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark PROMINA for goods and services in Class 7 – German trade mark No 847011 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Promat GmbH to pay the costs.
50

Third, the Board of Appeal’s finding that the word ‘timi’ is the dominant element of the challenged mark is clearly erroneous. That word is (i) printed in white on a darker background, making it ‘less immediately readable’ than if it was printed in black on a white background and (ii) its size is no more than a fraction of the overall trade mark. On the contrary, it is the word ‘kinder’ which is the dominant element of the mark as (i) the word ‘kinderjoghurt’ is printed in black and occupies much more space than the word ‘timi’ and (ii) the word ‘joghurt’ as a descriptive word should be regarded as either a negligible element, or as actually increasing the similarity with the KINDER family of marks. Further, the Board of Appeal’s finding in paragraph 41 of the contested decision, that the word ‘kinder’ does not stand out or appear as an independent element, and is attached to the word ‘joghurt’, is also misconceived. According to the case-law, the fact that a distinctive word is attached to a descriptive word does not negate the similarity of the distinctive element. Lastly, even if the word ‘timi’ were also relevant, the Board of Appeal could not have completely omitted the word ‘kinder’ from the comparison of the two signs. The applicant states, in that regard, that, in a particular case, an earlier mark used by a third party in a composite sign including the name of the third party’s company, still has an independent distinctive role in the composite sign, without necessarily being its dominant element. In such a case, the overall impression produced by the composite sign may lead the public to believe that the goods or services at issue derive, at the very least, from companies which are linked economically, in which case a likelihood of confusion must be held to be established.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 21 April 2010 – Coin v OHIM – Dynamiki Zoi (Fitcoin)

(Case T-249/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark Fitcoin – Earlier national, international and Community figurative marks coin – Relative ground for refusal – Relevant public – 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 para. 26)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 (Case R 1429/2007‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Coin SpA and Dynamiki Zoi AE.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Dynamiki Zoi AE Community trade mark sought: Word mark Fitcoin for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41 – Application No 3725298 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Coin SpA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian trade mark coin, Registration No 160126, for goods in Class 25; Italian trade mark coin, Registration No 253233, for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41; Italian trade mark coin, Registration No 240305, for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41; Italian trade mark coin, Registration No 169548, for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41, extended to Benelux, France, Hungary, Austria and Portugal; Italian trade mark coin, Registration No 240286, for goods and services in Class 25, extended to Benelux, France, Hungary and Austria; Community trade mark coin, Registration No 109827, for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 28 and 35; international trade mark coin, Registration No R 381015, for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41, extended to Benelux, Germany, Spain, France, Hungary, Austria, Portugal and Slovenia Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed in its entirety Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





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 15 April 2008 (Case R 1429/2007‑1);
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2010 – Toqueville v OHIM – Schiesaro (TOCQUEVILLE 13)

(Case T-510/08)

Community trade mark – Revocation proceedings – Community word mark TOCQUEVILLE 13 – Failure to comply with the time-limit for appealing against a revocation decision – Application for restitutio in integrum – Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Restitutio in integrum (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 78(1); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 77) (see paras 58-63)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of 26 August 2008 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 829/2008-2) concerning the applicant’s application for restitutio in integrum.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark subject to an action for revocation: Word mark TOCQUEVILLE 13 to designate goods and services in Classes 25, 41 and 42 – Community trade mark No 1406982 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Toqueville Srl Party requesting the revocation of the Community trade mark: Marco Schiesaro Contested decision by the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Cancellation Division to grant the application for partial revocation of the trade mark in question Decision of the Board of Appeal: Declaration that the appeal is inadmissible and rejection of a request for restitutio in integrum as regards the time-limit for filing an appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2010 – Italy v Commission

(Case T-95/08)

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Support scheme for production in the sector of products processed from fruit and vegetables – Exceptional support measures in the beef and veal sector – Tobacco premiums scheme

1. 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 17, 39)

2. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Principles – Disallowance of irregular expenses – Finding of failures in the control system implemented by a Member State (Council Regulation No 729/70) (see paras 43-47)

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Accounts clearance procedure – Purpose – Financial correction not constituting a penalty (see para. 48)

4. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Principles – Disallowance of expenses in connection with practices incompatible with Community law – Margin of discretion of the Commission – None (Council Regulation No 729/70, Arts 2 and 3) (see para. 49)

5. Agriculture – EAGGF – Grant of aids and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an efficient system of administrative controls and spot checks (see para. 77)

6. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 114)

7. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Raw tobacco – System of individual production quotas restablished by Regulation No 2075/92 (Council Regulation No 2075/92, as amended by Regulation No 1636/98, Art. 9; Commission Regulation No 2848/98, Arts 9 and 22) (see paras 116-119)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/68/EC of 20 December 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 2008 L 18, p. 12), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic in the sectors of products processed from fruit and vegetables, beef and veal and raw tobacco.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 21 September 2010 – Villa Almè v OHIM – Marqués de Murrieta (i GAI)

(Case T-546/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark i GAI – National word mark YGAY and Community figurative and word marks MARQUÉS DE MURRIETA YGAY – Relative grounds for refusal – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 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 39, 76-81)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2008 (Case R 1695/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Marqués de Murrieta, SA and Villa Almè Azienda vitivinicola di Vizzotto Giuseppe.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Villa Almè Azienda vitivinicola di Vizzotto Giuseppe Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark i GAI for goods in Class 33 – Application No 4458295 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bodegas Marqués de Murrieta SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark No 2315558 YGAY and Community figurative mark No 1707729 and Community word mark No 1699412 MARQUES DE MURRIETA YGAY 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;