ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 23 September 2009 — Cohausz v OHIM — Izquierdo Faces (acopat)

(Case T-409/07)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark acopat — Earlier national word marks COPAT — Relative ground for refusal — No genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 56(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds of invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 56(2)) (see paras 37-77)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2007 (Case R 289/2006-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Helge B. Cohausz and José Izquierdo Faces.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark subject to an application for validity: Figurative mark acopat for services in Classes 35 and 42 — Community trade mark No 1643782 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: José Izquierdo Faces Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Helge B. Cohausz Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: National word mark COPAT for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 41 and 42 Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Cancellation Division’s decision and dismissal of the request for a declaration of invalidity

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 26, 44-45

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 October 2007 (Case R 959/2006‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between Hasbro, Inc. and Enercon GmbH.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Communities – Rules on languages – No general principle giving each citizen the right to have any document capable of affecting his interests drafted in his own language (Council Regulation No 1) (see paras 53-54)

2. European Communities – Rules on languages – Regulation No 1 – Scope (Council Regulation No 1) (see paras 54-56)

3. Officials – Competitions – Notice of competition – Publication in the Official Journal only in certain official languages (see paras 61-69)

4. Officials – Competitions – Notice of competition – Full publication in the Official Journal only in certain official languages (see paras 80-85)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, first, of the Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/94/07 to constitute a reserve pool of Administrators (AD 5) in the field of information, communication and media (OJ 2007 C 45 A, p. 3) and, second, of the Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/95/07 to constitute a reserve pool of Administrators (AD 5) in the field of information science (library/documentation) (OJ 2007 C 103 A, p. 7).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

3. Orders the Republic of Lithuania and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Decision to reduce financial aid by reason of irregularities – Irregularity – Concept (Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24(2) and (3)) (see paras 46-48, 54-58, 161)

2. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Application for modifications of contractual conditions submitted by a body which benefited from aid – Duty of the Commission to reply within a reasonable time – Criteria for assessment (see paras 88-92)

3. Economic and social cohesion – European Regional Development Fund – Decision to reduce financial assistance – Amount of reduction determined without taking account of implementation of the project or of the absence of fraud or fraudulent intentions – Breach of principle of proportionality – None (Council Regulations No 4253/88, Art. 24, and No 2988/95, Art. 2) (see paras 146-148, 152-154)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of Community law – None – Action devoid of legal foundation (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 174-178)

5. Non-contractual liability – Liability for a lawful act – Principle not recognised in Community law – Pleas designed to establish abnormal and special loss and a causal link between that loss and the said act – Inoperative pleas (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 184-188)

Subject of the case

Re:

First, annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3893 of 8 August 2007, concerning a reduction in the assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88, amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93, to the city of Naples (Italy) by Commission Decision PH/1997/2761, approving the granting of ERDF assistance in the context of urban pilot project No 97.05.29.002 and, secondly, an application for damages seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the contested decision.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Comune di Napoli 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 27, 92

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2007 (Case R 85/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ford Motor Company and Alkar Automotive, SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ford Motor Company to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Union – Rules on languages – Regulation No 1 – Scope – Relations between the institutions and their staff – Not included (Council Regulation No 1) (see paras 30-33)

2. European Union – Rules on languages – No general principle giving each citizen the right to have any measure capable of affecting his interests drafted in his own language (Arts 290 EC and 314 EC; Council Regulation No 1) (see para. 50)

3. Officials – Contractual agents – Recruitment – Call for expressions of interest to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contractual agents – Publication on the site of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) only in certain official languages – Obligation to adopt measures allowing all potential candidates to become aware of the existence and content of the call – Candidates having sufficient mastery of at least one of the languages of publication – Discrimination based on language – None – Candidates having only knowledge of other official languages – Discrimination based on language (Art. 12 EC; Conditions of Employment of other Servants, Art. 82(1)) (see paras 52-54, 58-59, 63-64)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Call for expressions of interest EPSO/CAST/EU/27/07 to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contractual agents carrying out various activities within the European institutions and agencies, published on the website of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) on 27 March 2007.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Call for expressions of interest EPSO/CAST/EU/27/07 to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contractual agents carrying out various activities within the European institutions and agencies, published on the website of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) on 27 March 2007;

2. Orders the Italian Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding an infringement – Evidence which has to be gathered

(Art. 81(1) EC)

Summary

As regards proof of an infringement of Article 81(1) EC, the Commission must prove the infringements which it has found and adduce evidence capable of demonstrating to the requisite legal standard the existence of circumstances constituting an infringement. It is accordingly necessary for the Commission to produce precise and consistent evidence to support the firm conviction that the infringement took place.

Any doubt in the mind of the Court must operate to the advantage of the undertaking to which the decision finding an infringement was addressed. The Court cannot therefore conclude that the Commission has established the infringement at issue to the requisite legal standard if it still entertains any doubts on that point.

Furthermore, it is normal for the activities entailed by anti-competitive practices and agreements to take place clandestinely, for meetings to be held in secret and for the associated documentation to be reduced to a minimum. It follows that, even if the Commission discovers evidence explicitly showing unlawful contact between traders, it will normally be only fragmentary and sparse, so that it is often necessary to reconstitute certain details by deduction. Accordingly, in most cases, the existence of an anti-competitive practice or agreement must be inferred from a number of coincidences and indicia which, taken together, may, in the absence of another plausible explanation, constitute evidence of an infringement of the competition rules.

Even if the evidence accepted by the Commission may have a certain probative value, it is not sufficient to justify the finding that there was an infringement by the undertaking concerned, having regard to the contradictions in the Commission’s decision in relation inter alia to the meetings organised in connection with the cartel and the doubt which must operate to the advantage of the undertaking concerned; therefore, the Commission’s decision must be annulled.

(see paras 63-64, 76, 78)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2012 — Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise v Commission

(Case T-192/07)

‛Competition — Decision rejecting a complaint — No Community interest — Scope of the complaint — Competence of the author of the act — Duty to state reasons’

1. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Summary statement of pleas (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 28)

2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Taking into account the Community interest in investigating a case — Criteria for assessment — Discretion of the Commission — Limits — Judicial review (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 65-67, 80, 105)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision SG-Greffe (2007) D/202076 of 3 April 2007 dismissing the complaint in Case COMP/38863/B2-MODEF in relation to infringements of the EC Treaty.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2012 — Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise v Commission

(Case T-192/07)

‛Competition — Decision rejecting a complaint — No Community interest — Scope of the complaint — Competence of the author of the act — Duty to state reasons’

1. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Summary statement of pleas (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 28)

2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Taking into account the Community interest in investigating a case — Criteria for assessment — Discretion of the Commission — Limits — Judicial review (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 65-67, 80, 105)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision SG-Greffe (2007) D/202076 of 3 April 2007 dismissing the complaint in Case COMP/38863/B2-MODEF in relation to infringements of the EC Treaty.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Union law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions – Specific assurances given by the administration – Financial aid granted for an environmental project – Decision to effect partial recovery of the amount paid, determined after a technical check carried out after the accounting check by the Commission – Knowledge of the person concerned – No infringement of the principle (Council Regulation No 1973/92) (see paras 50-52, 57, 64-67)

2. Economic and social cohesion – European Regional Development Fund – Grant of Community financial assistance – Conditions – Compliance with the terms set out by the Commission and those in the application for assistance – Reduction of the amount of the financial assistance approved in the initial budget where that obligation infringed (Council Regulation No 1973/92) (see para. 73)

3. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing granted for national projects – Obligation on applicants for and beneficiaries of financial assistance to provide information and to cooperate – Scope (Council Regulation No 1973/92) (see para. 75)

4. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (see paras 113-118)

5. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Action brought against a Commission decision partially to recover an amount paid for carrying out an environmental project – No unlimited jurisdiction (see para. 121)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment or, in the alternative, amendment of Decision E (2005) 5361 of the Commission of 7 December 2005 relating to Debit Note No 3240504536 which was issued to the Dimos Peramatos (Municipality of Perama) to recover the financial contribution which had been paid by the Commission in the context of the subsidy granted to the Dimos Peramatos by Commission Decision C(97)/1997/29 final of 17 July 1997.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dimos Peramatos to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to interim proceedings.
A breach of the ‘reasonable time’ principle does not, as a general rule, warrant annulment of a decision adopted following an administrative procedure. It is only where the undue delay is likely to have an effect on the substance itself of the decision adopted following the administrative procedure that the failure to observe the ‘reasonable time’ principle affects the validity of the administrative procedure.

In the area of the procedure for clearance of EAGGF accounts, where it is only as a result of the lapse of time, in particular, of the Commission’s delay in adopting a decision on the clearance of accounts and of the change of the applicable legislation, that 50% of those consequences has been borne by the Member State concerned and 50% by the EAGGF, and where, therefore that excessive lapse of time has had an effect on the actual contents of the decision adopted following the administrative procedure, the infringement of the ‘reasonable time’ principle constitutes a ground for the partial annulment of that decision.

(see paras 80, 85, 86)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)

18 June 2008

Case T-164/07 P

Asa Sundholm

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Civil service – Officials – Career development report – 2003 appraisal procedure – Rights of the defence – Appeal inadmissible – Appeal unfounded)

Appeal: against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2007 in Case F-30/05 Sundholm v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Asa Sundholm is to bear her own costs and those incurred by the Commission in the present proceedings.

Summary

1. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Rights of the defence – Scope

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

2. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissible

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

1. Under the reports procedure established by the Commission, the fact that the appeal assessor consulted the assessor or work colleagues of the official under appraisal without hearing the official’s views may not be regarded as an infringement of the principle of observance of the rights of the defence provided that the information thus obtained is no different from the information which served as the basis for the assessments previously formulated by the assessor and the countersigning officer, or that, if that is the case, the appeal assessor does not intend to use that information to the official’s detriment.

(see paras 28-29)

See: T-308/04 Ianniello v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000, para. 73

2. Contending before the Court of First Instance that a finding of the Civil Service Tribunal is incorrect on the basis of a different factual premiss from that on which the Tribunal was required to take a view is tantamount to relying on a new plea in law which extends the subject-matter of the proceedings and cannot therefore be pleaded for the first time at the appeal stage. The jurisdiction of the appeal court is confined to review of the findings of law on the pleas argued before the court of first instance .

(see paras 41-42)

See: C‑266/05 P Sison v Council [2007] ECR I‑1233, para. 95 and the case-law cited therein
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 21 October 2008 – Aventis Pharma v OHIM – Nycomed (PRAZOL)

(Case T-95/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark PRAZOL – Earlier national word mark PREZAL – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 30, 56-57)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 February 2007 (Case R 302/2005-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Altana Pharma AG and Aventis Pharma SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Nycomed GmbH, formerly Altana Pharma AG Community trade mark sought: Word mark PRAZOL for goods in Class 5 – Application No 1154269 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Aventis Pharma SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark PREZAL for goods in Class 5 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and the opposition dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 February 2007 (Case R 302/2005‑4);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Aventis Pharma SA;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 – Alcon v OHIM – *Acri.Tec (BioVisc)

(Case T-106/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark BioVisc – Earlier international word marks PROVISC and DUOVISC − Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 February 2007 (Case R 660/2006-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Alcon Inc. and *Acri.Tec AG Gesellschaft für ophthalmologische Produkte.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: *Acri.Tec AG Gesellschaft für ophtalmologische Produkte Community trade mark sought: Word Mark BioVisc for goods in Class 5 – Application No 3651809 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Alcon Inc. Marks or signs relied on in support of the opposition: International work marks PROVISC and DUOVISC for goods in Class 5 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition dismissed in its entirety





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2008 – Mergel and Others v OHIM (Patentconsult)

(Case T-335/07)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark Patentconsult – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 20, 22, 25)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2007 (Case R 299/2007-4) concerning the registration of the word sign Patentconsult as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicants for the Community trade mark: Volker Mergel, Klaus Kampfenkel, Burkart Bill and Andreas Herden Community trade mark sought: Word mark Patentconsult for services in Classes 35, 41 and 42 – Application No 4439774 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;