ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2011 – CheapFlights International v OHIM – Cheapflights (Cheapflights with a black aeroplane)

(Case T-461/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark Cheapflights with a black aeroplane – Earlier international figurative mark CheapFlights – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35-36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 August 2009 (Case R 1607/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between CheapFlights International Ltd and Cheapflights Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Cheapflights Ltd Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Cheapflights with a black aeroplane for services in Classes 38, 39 and 41 to 44 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: CheapFlights International Ltd Mark or sign cited in opposition: Irish trade mark registration of the figurative sign in colour CheapFlights for services in Classes 35, 36, 38, 39 and 41 to 44; Irish trade mark application for the word mark CHEAPFLIGHTS for services in Classes 35, 39 and 43; Irish trade mark registration of the word mark CHEAPFLIGHTS for services in Classes 38, 41, 42 and 44; Irish trade mark registration of the figurative sign CheapFlights.ie for services in Classes 35, 39, 41 to 43; International trade mark registration of the figurative sign CheapFlights for services in Classes 35, 38, 39 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled; opposition dismissed in its entirety





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 31 August 2009 (Case R 1607/2007-4);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 April 2011 – Deichmann v OHIM (Representation of a chevron with perforated border)

(Case T-202/09)

Community trade mark – International registration designating the European Community – Figurative mark representing a chevron with perforated border – Absolute ground for refusal – Absence of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Mark consisting in the representation of one of the elements constituting the product – Distinctive character – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 40-41)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 34-35, 54)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2009 (Case R 224/2007-4) concerning an international registration designating the European Community of a figurative mark representing a chevron with perforated border.

Information relating to the case

Mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a chevron with perforated border for goods in Classes 10 and 25 (International Registration designating the European Community, No W00881226) Decision of the examiner: Protection refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1.Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2011 – ATB Norte v OHIM – Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER Garden)

(Case T-479/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark BRICO CENTER Garden – Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – 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 207/2009, Art 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 33-34, 57, 66-67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 (Case R 1044/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bricocenter Italia Srl Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark BRICO CENTER Garden in respect of services in Class 35 – Application No 4935144 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Earlier figurative Community trade marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro (No 989046) and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro (No 3262623) in respect of services in Class 35, 37 and 39 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled; opposition dismissed in its entirety





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 24 September 2009 (Case R 1044/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 June 2011 – Mundipharma v OHIM – Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI)

(Case T-76/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark ‘FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI’ – Earlier Community figurative mark ‘mundipharma’ – Relative ground for refusal – 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 paras 30-31)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2008 (Case R 825/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Mundipharma GmbH and Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI for goods and services in Classes 5, 35 and 39 – Application No 4841136 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Mundipharma GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 4304622 of the trade mark mundipharma for goods and services in Classes 5 and 44 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed in part Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 February 2012 —

Greece v Commission



(Case T‑469/09)

EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenses excluded from Community financing — Tomato processing and rice storage sectors — Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes — Principle of proportionality

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 1258/1999) (see paras 29‑34, 78)

2. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas not set out in the application — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 47)

3. Acts of the institutions — Regulations — Regulation prescribing specific control measures — No discretion of the Member States — Non-implementation — Justification — Other control system as effective or better — Not permissible (see para. 80)

4. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in the application of Community rules — Finding of failures in the control system implemented by a Member State — Possibility for the Commission to disallow expenses as a whole — Application of a flat-rate correction — Breach of principle of proportionality — None (Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 7; Commission Regulation No 2148/96, Arts 4 and 6) (see paras 137, 140, 147)

5. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Grant of aids and subsidies — Obligation of Member States to organise an efficient system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks — Failure to fulfil obligations — Justification based on practical difficulties — Not permissible (see paras 150‑152)

Re:

APPLICATION of annulment of Commission Decision 2009/721/EC of 24 September 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2009 L 257, p. 28).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2011 – Meica v OHIM – Bösinger Fleischwaren (Schinken King)

(Case T-61/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark Schinken King – Earlier national word mark King – Earlier national and Community word marks Curry King – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Duty to state reasons – Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 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 40-41, 51-53, 57-62)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2008 (Case R 1049/2007-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG and Bösinger Fleischwaren GmbH.

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 11 December 2008 (Case R 1049/2007-1);
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2012 —

Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission



(Case T‑17/09)

Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of informatics services for an electronic exchange of social security information project (EESSI project) in the field of the coordination of social security for persons mobile in Europe — Rejection of bid submitted by a tenderer — Award of the contract — Duty to state reasons — Transparency — Equal treatment — Manifest error of assessment — No interest in bringing proceedings — Non-contractual liability

1. EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (see para. 37)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, under the procedure for the award of a public service contract, to reject a tender — Account taken, by way of reasoning, of the replies of an institution to the requests of a discarded tenderer — Condition (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 38-45, 56, 73)

3. EU public contracts — Procedure for award of public contracts —Obligation to comply with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination against tenderers — Scope (Council Regulation No 1605/2002; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002) (see paras 65-68)

4. Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Natural or legal persons — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — Concept — Action by a tenderer, discarded before the stage preceding the decision to award a public contract, against the decision to award the contract to another tenderer — Not included — Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 114, 117-120)

5. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Actual and certain damage — Damage arising through loss of earnings — Future and hypothetical damage — Inadmissibility (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 122-123)

6. Procedure — Costs — Order against the successful party to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicants — Condition (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 87(3)) (see paras 130-132)

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in respect of the call for tenders VT/2008/019 EMPL EESSI for the provision of informatics products and services for the EESSI project (OJ 2008/S 111-148 213) and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, for damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2012 — Astrim and Elyo Italia v Commission

(Case T-216/09)

Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Maintenance services for air conditioning, heating and ventilation systems — Ispra Joint Research Centre — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Interpretation of a condition laid down in the contract specifications — Duty to state reasons

1. EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (see paras 17-21)

2. EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Obligation on an institution to exercise its option to make contact with a tenderer after the opening of tenders — Condition — Exercise in compliance with the principles of sound administration, equal treatment, proportionality and legal certainty (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 89 and 92; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 148(3)) (see paras 22-25, 38, 39, 42, 43)

3. EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Duty to comply with the principle of equal treatment of tenderers — Need to ensure equal opportunities and comply with the principle of transparency — Scope (see paras 34-37)

4. Proceedings — 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. 47)

5. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the award of a public contract, not to accept a tender (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 82-85)

6. EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Obligation to reject ambiguous tenders — Scope (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 99; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 139(1) and 148) (see paras 93-95, 102, 103)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the Commission Decision of 27 March 2009 rejecting the bid submitted by the applicants in connection with the call for tenders published on 25 October 2008 by the Commission for the award of routine and non-routine maintenance services for air conditioning, heating and ventilation systems at the Ispra Joint Research Centre (OJ 2008/S 208-274999), and, in the alternative, an application for partial annulment of point 17 of the invitation to tender.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
84

Finally, it is appropriate to point to the predominant role played by the State in the approved economic agricultural committees, within which it is represented by the regional Préfet. It is apparent from the provisions of the Rural Code that an application for approval of an economic agricultural committee sent, pursuant to Article R*552-1 of that Code, to the Minister for Agriculture in order to receive public aid, must, pursuant to Article R*552-2 thereof, be accompanied by certain documents, including‘the committee’s bye-laws’, which must include clauses providing that the ‘rules issued by the committee shall not be applicable until they have been approved by the Minister for Agriculture’, a ‘[d]eclaration stating the nature and forms of aid likely to be granted, if applicable, to the committee members’ and the ‘[t]exts of the rules issued by the committee in accordance with the provisions of Article L.552-1’. Under Article R.552-10 of the Rural Code, an approved economic agricultural committee cannot issue new rules or amend rules already approved without the express agreement of the Minister for Agriculture. Moreover, Article R.552-11 of the Rural Code provides that the Minister for Agriculture is to designate a representative to each approved economic agricultural committee, who has the role of technical adviser to the committee, is to attend or be represented at, on the conditions laid down by the Minister for Agriculture, the meetings of the Board and the general meeting, and who may consult on site or have sent to him all documents concerning the activity of the committee or the bodies which are members thereof and is regularly to be kept informed of all decisions taken by the Board and the resolutions adopted at the general meeting. Similarly, Article 1 of the Decree of the Minister for Agriculture of 30 October 2000 concerning the method of State representation on the economic agricultural committees in the fruit and vegetable sector (JORF, 15 November 2000, p. 18079) provides that the regional Préfet or his representative is entitled to attend all meetings of the managing bodies of the approved economic agricultural committees at which decisions are to be adopted and that he is to receive all minutes of the debates and the proceedings drawn up in that regard. Article 2 of that text gives the State’s representative, who is, if necessary, to have the assistance of Oniflhor, the responsibility of ensuring that the tasks entrusted to those committees are carried out in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the legislative and regulatory texts and provides that, to that end, he is to make a obligatory examination of the decisions of the managing bodies of the committees, the general meeting or the Board before their implementation, and of the agreements concluded, where they seek to lay obligations on the committee members or where they establish the uses of national, as regards the operation of or investments in the sector of production, or Community public financing. The decisions concerned are not enforceable until they bear that approval.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks to be refused under the Paris Convention – Protection of emblems of States and international organisations – Extent of protection (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(h)) (see para. 20)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks to be refused under the Paris Convention – Protection of emblems of States and international organisations – Imitation from the heraldic point of view (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(h)) (see paras 21-25)

3. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(g) and (h) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(g) and (h) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 27, 37, 52-54, 63-64)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2009 (Case R 235/2009-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between the Syndicat international des moniteurs de ski – École de ski internationale (SIMS – École de ski internationale) and the Syndicat national des moniteurs du ski français (SNMSF).

Information relating to the case

>lt>14

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Syndicat international des moniteurs de ski – École de ski internationale (SIMS – École de ski internationale) to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

3. Orders the Syndicat national des moniteurs du ski français to bear its own 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 22-24, 38

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2010 (Case R 481/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between ara AG and Allrounder SARL.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ara AG 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 24-27, 41

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 February 2010 (Case R 230/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Teco Electric & Machinery Co. Ltd and Graf-Syteco GmbH & Co. KG.

Information relating to the case

>lt>15

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Graf-Syteco GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.