ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods

–

Marks devoid of distinctive character

–

Exception

–

Distinctive character acquired through use (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b), (c) and (3) (see paras 40, 47-49, 95

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2008 (Case R 318/2008‑4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark ‘Deutsche BKK’ as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deutsche Betriebskrankenkasse (Deutsche BKK) to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Actions for damages (Arts 225(1) EC, 235 EC, 238 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 60-61

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of the Commission obtaining certain amendments to the contract Muteis IST-2000-30117, concluded on 31 October 2001.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nexus Europe (Ireland) Ltd to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid – Concept – Compensation awarded for expropriation of assets – Not included (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 57, 60, 63, 72, 74, 99, 101)

2. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Administrative procedure – Obligation on the Commission to put the parties concerned on notice to submit their observations – Right of the aid beneficiary to be sufficiently associated with the proceedings – Limits (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 161-163, 166-168)

3. EU Law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Whether applicable to administrative procedures initiated by the Commission – Examination of plans to grant aid – Scope (Art. 88(2) EC) (see para. 189)

4. State aid – Planned aid – Notification to the Commission – Scope of the obligation – Need to notify the aid measures at the draft stage (Art. 88(3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 2 and 3) (see paras 228-230, 234-236)

5. State aid – Commission decision finding aid unlawful and ordering its recovery – Aid not yet paid (Art. 88(3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras 239, 241, 250-251)

6. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Aid granted in breach of the procedural rules of Article 88 EC – Possible legitimate expectation on the part of the beneficiaries – Protection – Conditions and limits (Art. 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras 269-271, 275-276)

7. State aid – Commission decision not to raise objections to a national measure – Legitimate expectation of the beneficiary that an extension of the said measure is lawful – None (Art. 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras 283-284, 288)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for annulment of Decision 2008/408/EC of the Commission of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Cementir Italia Srl to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



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))

Summary

There is, for the relevant public consisting of consumers throughout the whole Community who are very attentive, well informed and familiar with basic English financial terminology, no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark between the figurative sign CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS Emissions Compliance Solutions & Carbon Finance, in respect of which registration as a Community trade mark is sought for ‘[f]inancial services; commodity trading; commodities brokerage; commodities finance; commodities investment services; services relating to the trading of commodities; provision of pricing information of commodities; capital investments; investment services; services relating to emissions allowance trading; options trading; trading in emissions allowances; trading in equities; trading in stocks; commodities brokerage; risk management services; financing of acquisitions; information, advisory and consultancy services relating to emissions trading’ falling within Class 36 of the Nice Agreement, and the figurative marks CM Capital Markets registered earlier as a Community trade mark for services in Classes 35, 36 and 42, and in Spain for services in Class 36.

Since the services falling in particular within Class 36 of the Nice Agreement that are covered by the earlier marks include the same range of financial sector services as those covered by the trade mark applied for and falling within the same class, the services at issue are identical. By contrast, the signs at issue are different. In the overall impression conveyed by the signs at issue, the visual and conceptual differences between the signs are sufficient to outweigh their limited phonetic similarity, particularly since, in the present case, the relevant public is highly attentive and well informed. Bearing in mind the lack of similarity of the signs at issue, in spite of the services covered being identical, there is no likelihood of direct confusion between the trade mark applied for and the earlier marks.

(see paras 33-34, 63, 66)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 52, 60)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion – Scope (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(1)) (see paras 71-72)

3. Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Legality – Examination by the Community judicature – Criteria (Council Regulation No 40/94) (see paras 93-95)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2008 (Case R 78/2007-4), concerning the registration as a Community trade mark of the figurative sign representing the head of a guitar in the colours silver, grey and brown.

Information relating to the case

>lt>17

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hans-Peter Wilfer 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 30, 34-36, 38-40, 42

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of 7 July 2008 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1730/2007-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing a horse.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein GbR, Research and Development to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Measures for establishing the single market – Introduction of new derogating national provision – Commission approval or rejection procedure – Time-limits

(Art. 95(6), first and second para., EC)

Summary

With regard to a Commission decision the object of which is to prevent the adoption of national provisions notified to the Commission by a Member State, its taking of effect – which by definition coincides with the interruption of the six-month time-limit laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 95(6) EC – cannot arise before the date on which it becomes enforceable as against that Member State, that is to say, the date on which it is notified.

In consequence, the second subparagraph of Article 95(6) EC, which refers to the absence of a decision by the Commission within the period of six months referred to in the first subparagraph of this provision, cannot therefore be interpreted as meaning that the mere adoption of the decision interrupts that period, irrespective of when that decision is notified. The internal decision-making process of the Commission is not, as a general rule, perceptible to the Member State concerned. Accordingly, if the basis for interrupting the time-limit were to be taken as the adoption of the decision and not as its notification to the Member State concerned, that time-limit would be extended as regards the latter.

(see paras 68-69)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Decision of the Commission adressed to a Member State and finding State aid incompatible with the common market – Action by the beneficiary of the aid – Admissibility (see para. 26)

2. State aid – Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its repayment – Obligations of the Member States – Obligation of recovery – Scope – Restoration of the prior situation (Art. 88(2) EC) (see para. 32)

3. State aid – Concept – Advantage granted to the beneficiaries of State aid – State guarantees – Nullity by reason of national law of the contractual clauses granting the State guarantee – Not relevant to the classification as aid (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 38, 40)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/948/EC of 23 July 2008 on measures by Germany to assist DHL and Leipzig-Halle Airport (OJ 2008 L 346, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders DHL Aviation SA/NV and DHL Hub Leipzig GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding a single infringement

(Art. 81(1) EC)

2. Actions for annulment – Subject-matter – Reasons for a decision – Exclusion unless exception

(Art. 230 EC)

Summary

1. The mere fact that there is identity of object between an agreement in which an undertaking participated and a global cartel does not suffice to render that undertaking responsible for the global cartel. It is only if the undertaking knew or should have known when it participated in the agreement that in doing so it was joining in the global cartel that its participation in the agreement concerned can constitute the expression of its accession to that global cartel. In that connection, the undertaking is in no way required to state, on its own initiative, the extent to which it knew of the conduct of the other participants in the infringement, since the burden of proof is borne by the Commission. The Commission must first adduce proof of a fact before the undertaking concerned can dispute this.

(see paras 30-31)

2. The enacting terms of an act are inextricably linked to the statement of reasons for them, so that, if that act has to be interpreted, account must be taken of the reasons which led to its adoption. Although only the operative part of a decision is capable of producing legal effects, the fact remains that the assessments made in the grounds of a decision can be subject to judicial review by the judicature of the European Union to the extent that, as grounds of a measure adversely affecting the interests of those concerned, they constitute the essential basis for the operative part of that measure or if those grounds are likely to alter the substance of what was decided in the operative part.

(see para. 34)
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, 26, 30

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 October 2008 (Case R 1675/2007‑1) concerning opposition proceedings between Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn Bhd and Proton Motor Fuel Cell GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn Bhd to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Informed user – Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 6(1)) (see paras 23-27)

2. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Representation of an internal combustion engine (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 4(2), 6)(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 38, 43, 45)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of 8 October 2007 of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1380/2006-3), relating to invalidity proceedings for Community designs between Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha and Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd 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 25-30, 42-47

)
In interpreting the notion of genuine use, for the purposes of Article 43(2) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, it must be remembered that the ratio legis of the provision requiring that the earlier mark must have been put to genuine use in order to be capable of being used in opposition to a trade mark application is to restrict the number of conflicts between two marks, where there is no good commercial justification resulting from a function actually performed by the mark on the market.

However, the purpose of Article 43(2) of Regulation No 40/94 and Rule 22(3) of Regulation No 2868/95, implementing Regulation No 40/94, is not to assess commercial success or to review the economic strategy of an undertaking, nor is it intended to restrict trade mark protection to the case where large-scale commercial use has been made of the marks.

There is genuine use of a trade mark where the mark is used in accordance with its essential function, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services for which it is registered, in order to create or preserve an outlet for those goods or services; genuine use does not include token use for the sole purpose of preserving the rights conferred by the mark. Furthermore, the condition relating to genuine use of the trade mark requires that the mark, as protected on the relevant territory, be used publicly and outwardly.

When assessing whether use of the trade mark is genuine, regard must be had to all the facts and circumstances relevant to establishing whether the commercial exploitation of the mark is real, particularly the usages regarded as warranted in the economic sector concerned as a means of maintaining or creating a share in the market for the goods or services protected by the mark, the nature of those goods or services, the characteristics of the market and the scale and frequency of use of the mark.

As to the extent of the use to which the earlier trade mark has been put, account must be taken, in particular, of the commercial volume of the overall use, as well as of the length of the period during which the mark was used and the frequency of use.

(see paras 21-24)
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 66, 114)

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 67-71)

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 existence 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 72-75, 77, 83, 136)

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. 99)

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. 113)

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 Artisjus Magyar Szerzői Jogvédő Iroda Egyesület;

2. Annuls Article 4(2) and (3) of that decision, to the extent that they refer to Article 3 of that decision, in so far as they concern Artisjus;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the main proceedings;

4. Orders Artisjus and the Commission each to bear their own costs relating to the interim relief proceedings.
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 66, 114)

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 67-71)

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 existence 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 para 72-75, 77, 83, 136)

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. 99)

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. 113)

6. Actions for annulment — Judicial review — Limits on jurisdiction (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 158)

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 Stowarzyszenie Autorów ZAiKS);

2. Annuls Article 4(2) and (3) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final, to the extent that they refer to Article 3 of that decision, in so far as they concern Stowarzyszenie Autorów ZAiKS;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

4. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the main proceedings;

5. Orders Autorów ZAiKS and the Commission each to bear their own costs relating to the interim relief proceedings.