ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
85

It is true that an investigation can, in accordance with Decision 2008/969, be the ground for a request by OLAF for a person to be entered in the EWS. It follows from Article 10 of that decision that OLAF is to request such activation of a W1a warning where its investigations at an early stage give sufficient reason to believe that findings of serious administrative errors or fraud are likely to be recorded in the EWS. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the applicant was informed only on 6 February 2009 of the fact that it was the subject of investigations and that, as part of those investigations, an on-site check was to be carried out between 22 and 26 February 2009. The Commission cannot therefore rely on that information alone given by OLAF to the applicant as part of those investigations and claim, in essence, that the applicant was able to ‘deduce’ from the facts and documents concerned the reasons for its being subject to monitoring measures. Furthermore, it is not apparent either from the file before the General Court that OLAF informed the applicant that those investigations could also result in a request for its registration in the EWS.
57

Next, it must be observed that the documents seized at Hitachi’s premises enabled the Commission to identify at least some of the undertakings and some of their representatives who took part in those meetings. First, the names of certain persons taking part in those meetings are indicated in the document marked ‘FP 4’ and, with the aid of other documents, such as the one marked ‘FPB 200’, the Commission was able to determine, for some of them, the undertakings to which they belonged and which they represented at those meetings, namely the ABB, Alstom and VA-TECH groups. As regards the names of two persons mentioned in the document marked ‘FP 4’ which could not be linked to the abovementioned undertakings, it must be concluded that, having regard to the fact that, first, the documents marked ‘NB 6’, ‘NB 8’ and ‘KC 10’ referred to a meeting held in the conference room of a factory belonging to one of the participating undertakings in Nuremberg (Germany), and, second, that an important Siemens facility was located in that town, the Commission had information and grounds enabling it to suspect that Siemens representatives had also taken part in those meetings. Second, the Commission rightly refers to the fact that it seized documents at Hitachi’s premises enabling it to suspect that that undertaking had also taken part in meetings concerning power transformers. Third, in the document marked ‘FP 5’, reference is made to the setting up of two joint undertakings between undertakings referred to by the codes ‘T2’, ‘T3’, on the one hand, and ‘T4’ and ‘T5’, on the other. As the Commission properly concludes, it was able to infer, on the basis of information which was already publicly available at the time of the inspections at Hitachi, that a joint enterprise was set up between Fuji and Hitachi, on the one hand, and between Toshiba and another Japanese undertaking, on the other. Therefore, particularly on the basis of that document, it could also entertain suspicions as to the participation of the Hitachi, Fuji and Toshiba groups in the meetings.
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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24-25, 45, 48

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2009 (Case R 529/2009‑2) in relation to opposition proceedings between Meteor Controls International Ltd and Inter IKEA Systems BV.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Inter IKEA Systems BV 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38, 40-43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2010 (Case R 1114/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Tempus Vade, SL and Mr. Juan Palacios Serrano.

Information relating to the case

>lt>16

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Tempus Vade, SL to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Decisions of the Office – Rectification – Manifest error – Concept – Breach of the rights of the defence – Exception

(Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 39)

2. Acts of the institutions – Withdrawal – Unlawful acts – Conditions – Compliance with reasonable time-limits and with the principle of protection of legitimate expectations

3. Acts of the institutions – Choice of legal basis – Error – Annulment of the act – Conditions

Summary

1. Under Article 39 of Regulation No 2245/2002, implementing Regulation No 6/2002 on Community designs, in decisions of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), only linguistic errors, errors of transcription and obvious mistakes may be corrected. They are to be corrected by the department which took the decision, acting of its own motion or at the request of an interested party.

In view of the importance of the binding nature of the operative part of a final decision made by a competent authority and following the principle of legal certainty, the rule enabling, in exceptional circumstances, subsequent corrections to be made to that decision is to be interpreted strictly. Therefore, the concept of ‘obvious mistakes’ is limited to formal mistakes whose incorrectness is clear from the body of the decision itself and which do not affect the scope and substance of that decision as characterised by its operative part and its grounds. On the other hand, the concept of ‘obvious mistakes’ cannot cover mistakes liable to vitiate the substance of the contested decision.

A breach of the rights of the defence resulting from the fact that a decision has been adopted before the end of the period granted to the applicant for submitting his observations is not an obvious mistake within the meaning of Article 39 of Regulation No 2245/2002. That breach is a mistake affecting the procedure that led to the adoption of that decision and, therefore, liable to vitiate the substance of that decision.

(see paras 35, 37)

2. The retrospective withdrawal of an unlawful administrative act which has created individual rights is permissible, provided that the institution which adopted the act complies with the conditions relating to reasonable time-limits and the legitimate expectations of beneficiaries of the act who have been entitled to rely on its lawfulness.

(see para. 40)

3. Notwithstanding the existence of another legal basis, an error in choosing the legal basis will lead to the annulment of the act concerned when that error may affect the content of that act, inter alia by rendering unlawful the procedure applicable to its adoption.

(see para. 41)
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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 46, 50-51, 56

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 November 2009 (Case R 1558/2008‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne GmbH and Natura Cosméticos, SA.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne GmbH 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 54

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 July 2010 (Case R 1175/2008‑4), concerning opposition proceedings between Jesús Miguel Azpiroz Arruti and The Pukka Luggage Company Ltd.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders The Pukka Luggage Company Ltd 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 64-66

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 August 2010 (Case R 542/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Dorma GmbH & Co. KG and Puertas Doorsa, SL.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dorma GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Keywords



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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 48

)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 March 2012 — ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v OHIM (Highprotect)

(Case T-565/10)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Highprotect — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — 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 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 15-18)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2010 (Decision R 1038/2010-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark Highprotect as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 March 2012 — ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v OHIM (Highprotect)

(Case T-565/10)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Highprotect — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — 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 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 15-18)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2010 (Decision R 1038/2010-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark Highprotect as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 February 2012 — Goutier v OHIM — Euro Data (ARANTAX)

(Case T-387/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ARANTAX — Earlier national word mark ANTAX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Meaning (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 21-26)

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 48, 78, 79)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2010 (Case R 126/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Euro Data GmbH & Co. KG, Datenverarbeitungsdienst and Mr Klaus Goutier.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Klaus Goutier to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 February 2012 — Goutier v OHIM — Euro Data (ARANTAX)

(Case T-387/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ARANTAX — Earlier national word mark ANTAX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Meaning (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 21-26)

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 48, 78, 79)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2010 (Case R 126/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Euro Data GmbH & Co. KG, Datenverarbeitungsdienst and Mr Klaus Goutier.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords



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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32-35

)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2012 — Cortés del Valle López v OHIM (¡Que buenu ye! HIJOPUTA)

(Case T-417/10)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark ¡Que buenu ye! HIJOPUTA — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(f)) (see paras 13-14, 18, 29)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2010 (Case R 175/2010-2) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the figurative sign ¡Que buenu ye! HIJOPUTA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Federico Cortés del Valle López to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2012 — Cortés del Valle López v OHIM (¡Que buenu ye! HIJOPUTA)

(Case T-417/10)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark ¡Que buenu ye! HIJOPUTA — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(f)) (see paras 13-14, 18, 29)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2010 (Case R 175/2010-2) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the figurative sign ¡Que buenu ye! HIJOPUTA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords



Keywords

Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Decision on the clearance of accounts — Time-limit — Non-compliance — No effect on the Commission’s obligation to refuse to allow expenses incurred in breach of Community rules (Council Regulation No 1260/1999, Arts 38 and 39; Commission Regulation No 448/2001, Art. 5(3)) (see para. 32)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 65)

3. Member States — Obligations — Duty of loyal cooperation — Application of procedural and substantive rules of national law — Conditions (Art. 4(3) TEU) (see para. 74)

4. 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 (see paras 75, 109)

5. Actions for annulment — Contested act — Assessment of lawfulness — Criteria (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 86)
Under Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark in conjunction with Article 8(4) thereof, the existence of a sign other than a mark makes it possible to obtain a declaration that a Community trade mark is invalid if that sign satisfies all of four conditions: the sign must be used in the course of trade; it must be of more than mere local significance; the right to that sign must have been acquired in accordance with the law of the Member State in which the sign was used prior to the date of application for registration of the Community trade mark; and, lastly, the sign must confer on its proprietor the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark. Those four conditions limit the number of signs other than marks which may be relied on to dispute the validity of a Community trade mark throughout the Community under Article 1(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. Given that the conditions laid down by Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 are cumulative, it is sufficient that only one of those conditions not be satisfied for an application for a declaration of invalidity of Community trade marks to be rejected.

The first two conditions, namely those relating to the use of the sign relied on and its significance, which must be more than merely local, are apparent from the very wording of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 and must therefore be interpreted in the light of EU law. Regulation No 207/2009 thus sets out uniform standards, relating to the use of signs and their significance, which are consistent with the principles underlying the system established by that regulation.

By contrast, it is apparent from the phrase ‘where and to the extent that, pursuant to the law of the Member State governing that sign’, that the other two conditions, set out subsequently in Article 8(4)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009, constitute conditions laid down by the regulation which, unlike the conditions above, must be assessed in the light of the criteria set by the law governing the sign relied on. That reference to the law governing the sign relied on is entirely justified, given that Regulation No 207/2009 makes it possible for signs which fall outside the Community trade mark system to be relied on against a Community trade mark. Therefore, only the law which governs the sign relied on can determine whether that sign predates the Community trade mark and whether it can justify a prohibition of the use of a subsequent trade mark.

(see paras 54-56, 70)
The principle of respect for the rights of the defence requires, first, that the entity concerned must be informed of the evidence adduced against it to justify the measure adversely affecting it. Secondly, that person must be afforded the opportunity effectively to make known his view on that evidence.

Therefore, where the Council intends to rely on information submitted by a Member State in order to adopt restrictive measures affecting an entity, it is obliged to ensure, before the adoption of those measures, that the entity concerned can be notified of the information in question in good time so that it is able effectively to make known its point of view. However, belated disclosure of a document on which the Council relied in order to adopt or maintain the restrictive measures concerning an entity does not constitute a breach of the rights of the defence that would justify the annulment of acts adopted previously unless it is established that the restrictive measures concerned could not have been lawfully adopted or maintained if the document belatedly disclosed had to be excluded as inculpatory evidence.

As regards communication of evidence, according to the principle of respect for the rights of the defence, the Council is not required to disclose information other than that contained in its file.

(see paras 50-56, 84-87)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Decision on the clearance of accounts — Time-limit — Non-compliance — No effect on the Commission’s obligation to refuse to allow expenses incurred in breach of Community rules (Council Regulation No 1260/1999, Arts 38 and 39; Commission Regulation No 448/2001, Art. 5(3)) (see para. 32)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 65)

3. Member States — Obligations — Duty of loyal cooperation — Application of procedural and substantive rules of national law — Conditions (Art. 4(3) TEU) (see para. 74)

4. 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 (see paras 75, 109)

5. Actions for annulment — Contested act — Assessment of lawfulness — Criteria (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 86)

Subject of the case

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Decision C(2010) 4255 of 29 June 2010 concerning the application of financial corrections to assistance from the EAGGF, Guidance Section, allocated to Operational Programme No CCI 1999.PT.06.1.PO.007 (Portugal — National Objective 1 programme) for the measure ‘Investments in agricultural holdings’.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.