ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 – Gerson v OHIM (Paint filter partly coloured yellow)

(Case T-201/06)

Community trade mark – Application for a three‑dimensional Community trade mark – Paint filter partly coloured yellow – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 23-26)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 May 2006 (Case R 1387/2005‑2) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three‑dimensional sign consisting of a paint filter coloured yellow near the tip.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Louis M. Gerson Co., Inc. Community trade mark sought: Three dimensional mark relating to a paint filter partly coloured yellow for products and services in Classes 16 and 21 – Application No 3969367 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 – Tomorrow Focus v OHIM – Information Builders (Tomorrow Focus)

(Case T-90/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark Tomorrow Focus – Earlier Community figurative mark FOCUS – 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 14, 37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2006 (Case R 116/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Information Builders (Netherlands) BV and Tomorrow Focus AG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Tomorrow Focus AG Community trade mark sought: Word mark Tomorrow Focus for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 – Application No 2382455 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Information Builders (Netherlands) BV Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark Focus for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 42 (Community mark No 68585) Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld; application dismissed for Classes 9 and 42 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision set aside; application dismissed for certain goods and services in Classes 9 and 42; application dismissed as to the remainder





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
PARTIAL ANNULMENT of Commission Decision 2006/554/EC of 27 July 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 218, p. 12) in so far as it provides for a financial correction applicable to expenses declared by the Kingdom of Spain pursuant to compensatory aid for banana producers for the financial years 2002 and 2003.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2008 – Commission v Premium

(Case T-316/06)

Arbitration clause – Contracts entered into under a specific research and technological development programme in the field of information technology – Repayment of part of the advance payment made by the Community – Default interest

1. Budget of the European Communities – Community financial assistance – Duty of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for granting the assistance (see para. 38)

2. Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC; Council Decision 91/394) (see paras 48, 58, 65, 70-71, 78, 81)

Re:

ACTION under Article 238 EC claiming that the defendant should be ordered to repay part of the advance payments made by the Community, together with default interest, because of failure to comply with certain contractual obligations.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Premium SA to pay to the Commission the principal sum of EUR 57 605.74, together with default interest:

– at the rate of 3.36% per annum for the period from 1 October to 31 December 1998;

– at the rate of 3.47% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 1999;

– at the rate of 2.74% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2000;

– at the rate of 4.26% per annum for the period from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2002;

– at the rate of 3.29% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2003;

– at the rate of 2.27% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2004;

– at the rate of 2.05% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2005;

– at the rate of 2.11% per annum for the period from 1 January 2006 to the date of the present judgment;

– at the rate applicable under French law for the period from the date of the present judgment to that of final settlement of the principal sum;

2. Orders Premium to pay to the Commission the principal sum of EUR 30 988.74, together with default interest:

– at the rate of 3.95% per annum for the period from 1 October to 31 December 1998;

– at the rate of 2.85% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 1999;

– at the rate of 3.6% per annum for the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001;

– at the rate of 2.95% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2002;

– at the rate of 2.15% per annum for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2004;

– at the rate of 2.4% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2005;

– at the rate of 2.5% per annum for the period from 1 January 2006 to the date of the present judgment;

– at the rate applicable under Danish law for the period from the date of the present judgment to that of final settlement of the principal sum;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2009 – MABB v Commission

(Case T-24/06)

State aid – Digital terrestrial television – Aid granted by the German authorities to broadcasters which use the digital terrestrial television network (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Action for annulment – Not of individual concern – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – Action brought by an authority forming an integral part of the State, not having budgetary independence and subject to State control – Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 42, 50, 52-53)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/513/EC of 9 November 2005 on the State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 14).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 8 July 2009 – Zenab v Commission

(Case T-33/06)

Community financial support – Programme to encourage the development, distribution and promotion of European audiovisual works (MEDIA Plus) – Call for proposals – Rejection of the proposal – Alleged unlawful delegation of powers transferred to the Commission – Manifest errors of assessment – Obligation to state reasons – Access to documents – Action for annulment and for compensation

1. Culture – Community Programmes – MEDIA Plus Programme (Council Decision 2000/821, Arts 8(2) and 10) (see paras 58-75, 94-128)

2. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law (see para. 76)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision refusing the grant of financial assistance under a programme for encouraging the development and distribution of European audiovisual works(Art. 253 EC) (see paras 137-155)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 162-163)

Re:

ACTION, first, for annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 9 November 2005 with reference number 648599 and, secondly, for a finding that the European Community is non-contractually liable, for an order that the Commission should pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 37 807 as compensation for the costs incurred in the context of the call for proposals, the amount of the non-material loss because of damage to reputation and the amount of the material loss resulting from the delay in the implementation of the EuroVOD project, and for the appointment of an expert to assess that loss.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 – RKW and JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen v Commission

(Joined Cases T-55/06 and T-66/06)

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Plastic industrial bags sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Fines – Guidelines for the calculation of fines – Maximum limit of 10% of turnover – Implementation – Legality – Proportionality – Equal treatment – Single and continuous infringement – Attenuating circumstances – Exclusively passive role – Duty to state reasons – Imputability of unlawful conduct

1. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Discretion conferred on the Commission by Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 – Infringement of the principle that penalties must have a sound legal basis – None (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 19-20)

2. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Principle of equal treatment – Differences between undertakings arising from application of the maximum amount – Lawfulness (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 21, 24)

3. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Fines – Determination – Criteria – Raising of the general level of fines – Lawfulness – Conditions – Duty to state reasons – Scope (Arts 81(1) EC and 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 31-32)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances – Passive or ‘follow-my-leader’ role of the undertaking – Criteria for assessment (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, Section 3, first indent) (see paras 81-83, 86-87, 89)

5. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances – Termination of the infringement after the Commission’s intervention – Margin of discretion of the Commission (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, Section 3) (see para. 94)

6. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Non-imposition or reduction of the fine for cooperation of the undertaking concerned – Reduction for not disputing the facts – Conditions (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 96/C 207/04, Title D, Section 2) (see paras 101-102)

7. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‑owned subsidiaries – Evidential obligations of the company seeking to rebut that presumption (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 111-116)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C (2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 – Industrial bags) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-232/06)

Public service contracts – Tendering procedure – Provision of services for specification, development, maintenance and support of customs IT services relating to IT projects – Rejection of a tender – Award of the contract to another tenderer – Action for damages – Disregard of the procedural requirements – Inadmissibility – Action for annulment – Time allowed for the receipt of tenders – Time allowed for the submission of requests for information – Equal treatment – Manifest error of assessment

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Action seeking compensation for damage caused by an EU institution – No indications as to the character and extent of the damage and the causal link – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 30-32)

2. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Determination of the time allowed for the submission of requests for additional information – Time-limit for receipt of tenders not taken into account – Irregularity of the pre-litigation procedure – Effects – Annulment of the contested decision – Conditions – Burden of proof (see paras 61-68)

3. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Obligation to comply with the principle of equal treatment of tenderers – No necessity to neutralise absolutely all the advantages of the contracting tenderer in place (see paras 74-77)

4. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see paras 180, 195)

Re:

APPLICATION for (i) annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2006 not to select the tender submitted by the consortium formed by the applicant and other companies in connection with a call for tenders for specification, development, maintenance and support of customs IT services relating to IT projects ‘CUST-DEV’ and to award the contract to another tenderer and (ii) damages.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 14 February 2012 —

Italy v Commission



(Case T‑267/06)

EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Financial corrections — Fruit and vegetables — Public storage of beef and veal

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 Regulations No 729/70 and No 1258/1999) (see paras 31, 72, 94‑97)

2. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject matter of the dispute — Summary statement of pleas (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 35‑38, 78)

3. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of Community rules — Introduction of an adjustment of the disallowance by reference to the risk created for the EAGGF by the seriousness of the failure to act attributable to the national control authorities — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof (see para. 42)

4. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Accounts clearance procedure — Conciliation procedure — Opinion of the conciliation body — No binding effect (see para. 45)

5. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Limitation of refusal of financing — Twenty-four month period — Point from which time starts to run — Communication by the Commission of the results of verifications — Content (Council Regulations No 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c), and No 1258/1999, Art. 7(4), fifth para.; Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 50‑52)

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/554/EC of 27 July 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 218, p. 12), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic in the fruit and vegetable sector and in the public storage of beef and veal sector.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 25 June 2008 Zipcar v OHIM Canary Islands Car (ZIPCAR)

(Case T-36/07)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ZIPCAR — Earlier national word mark CICAR — 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 47-50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2006 (Case R 122/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Canary Islands Car, SL and Zipcar, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Zipcar, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark ZIPCAR for goods and services in Classes 9, 39 and 42 Application No 3139375 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Canary Islands Car, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark CICAR for services in Class 39 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in relation to the Class 39 services cited Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Grounds – Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons – Distinguished from manifest error of assessment (Art. 253 EC) (see para. 37)

2. State aid – Not allowed – Exceptions – Shipbuilding aid (Council Regulation No 1540/98, Art. 3(2)) (see paras 53-58)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/948/EC of 4 July 2006 on State aid which Italy plans to implement for Cantieri Navali Termoli SpA (OJ 2006 L 383, p. 53).

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Cantieri Navali Termoli SpA 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 55, 57-63

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2007 (Case R-1076/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Anvil Knitwear, Inc. and Aprile e Aprile Srl.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Anvil Knitwear, Inc. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Surrender, revocation and invalidity

–

Absolute grounds of invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 45-47

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2007 (Case R 165/2005-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between CMS Hasche Sigle and Colgate-Palmolive Co.

Information relating to the case

>lt>15

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Colgate-Palmolive Co. 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 26, 43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2007, as corrected (Case R 1050/2005‑1), concerning opposition proceedings between Registro Profesional de Tenis, SL and Professional Tennis Registry, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

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 28 February 2007, as corrected (Case R 1050/2005‑1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Professional Tennis Registry, Inc.;

3. Orders Registro Profesional de Tenis, SL, to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 June 2009 — Korsch v OHIM (PharmaResearch)

(Case T-464/07)

‛Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark PharmaResearch — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application’

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, 37, 42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2007 (Case R 924/2007-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign PharmaResearch as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Korsch AG Community trade mark sought: Word mark ‘PharmaResearch’ for goods and services in Class 9 — Application No 5309836 Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;