ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 18 January 2011 – Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM – Capela & Irmãos (VOGUE)

(Case T-382/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark VOGUE – Earlier national word mark VOGUE Portugal – No genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 27-29)

2. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Application of the criteria to the case in question (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 30-32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2008 (Case R 328/2003-2) relating to opposition proceedings between J. Capela & Irmãos, L da and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark VOGUE for goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 25 and 41 – Application No 183756 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: J. Capela & Irmãos, Lda Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese trade mark registration No 143183 of the word mark VOGUE Portugal for goods in Class 25; Portuguese business name No 32046 VOGUE – SAPATARIA Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 June 2008 (Case R 328/2003-2);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2011 – Uralita v Commission

(Case T-349/08)

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Sodium chlorate market – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Action for annulment – Imputability of unlawful conduct

1. 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 (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 53(1)) (see paras 38-42)

2. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Legal person responsible for the running of the undertaking at the time of the infringement – Disappearance – Disappearance through absorption by another undertaking – Absorbed company being a former parent company having had liability for its own conduct attributed to it – Attribution of liability to the acquirer – Lawfulness (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 55-62)

Re:

APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.695 – Sodium chlorate) in so far as it concerns Uralita, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 September 2011 – Vion v OHIM (PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD)

(Case T-251/08)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctiveness – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 18-19, 27-28)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2008 (Case R 562/2007‑4) concerning the registration of the word sign PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2012 — Cadila Healthcare v OHIM – Novartis (ZYDUS)

(Case T-288/08)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ZYDUS — Earlier Community word mark ZIMBUS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — 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 32, 62-67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2008 (Case R 1092/2007‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis AG and Cadila Healthcare Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for a ruling that there is no need to adjudicate;

2. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 December 2011 – Luxembourg v Commission

(Case T-232/08)

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenses excluded from Community financing – Rural development measures – ‘Less favoured areas’ and ‘agroenvironment’ – National systems for management, monitoring and sanctions – Flat-rate financial correction

1. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of Community rules – Challenge by the Member State concerned – Burden of proof – Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (see paras 27-31, 51-53)

2. Actions for annulment – Contested act – Assessment of legality in the light of the information available at the time of adoption of the measure (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 54-55)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/321/EC of 8 April 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2008 L 109, p. 35).

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

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 33

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2008 (Case R 1109/2007-1) concerning the registration of the sign in the form of a presentation of part of a chuck with three grooves as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>11

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Schunk GmbH & Co. KG Spann- und Greiftechnik 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 holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade – Conditions (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(4)) (see para. 18)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 45, 47-51)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2009 (Cases R 237/2008 1 and R 236/2008 1) relating to opposition proceedings between Valigeria Roncato SpA and Roncato Srl.

Information relating to the case

>lt>7

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Valigeria Roncato SpA 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 devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 42

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 March 2009 (Cases R 1184/2008-1 and R 1196/2008-1) concerning applications for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of faceted casing of an electric motor and a figurative sign representing green facets.

Information relating to the case

>lt>10

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Wilo SE to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause

–

Contract concluded between the Commission and a company for implementing a project under the programme concerning the promotion of energy technologies for Europe (Thermie)

–

Non-performance of the contract

–

Right of the Commission to repayment of the sums advanced, plus interest for delay (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 49-55, 66, 70-71, 74-75

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought by the Commission pursuant to Article 238 EC for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 157 238.07, paid by it to the defendant in relation to a construction project in Valladolid of a commercial and business centre equipped with a solar powered air conditioning system (contract BU/1041/93) plus late payment interest.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Edificios Inteco SL to reimburse to the European Commission the sum of EUR 157 238.07, plus EUR 81 686.22 corresponding to interest due on 1 June 2009;

2. Orders Edificios Inteco to reimburse the Commission the sum of EUR 21.73796 for each additional day’s delay from 2 June 2009 to payment in full of the debt;

3. Orders Edificios Inteco to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Contract concluded between the Commission and a partnership under the law of England and Wales without legal personality – Action by the Commission against the partnership as such – Application inadmissible (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 50-53)

2. Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Contract concluded between the Commission and a partnership for the implementation of a project under the Culture 2000 Framework Programme – Non-compliance with obligations under the contract – Presentation of ineligible invoices – Repayment of the excess, plus interest for delay (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 58-71)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION by the Commission under an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC, seeking an order that New Acoustic Music Association and Ms Hildibrandsdottir repay to it part of the amount of the advances paid, together with default interest, in performance of Contract No 2003-1895/001-001, to carry out the action entitled ‘CLT2003/A1/GB-317 – European Music Roadwork’, as part of the ‘Culture 2000’ Framework Programme established by Decision 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 February 2000 (OJ 2000 L 63, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that the action is inadmissible in so far as it is brought against New Acoustic Music Association;

2. Orders Ms Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdottir, as a member of the New Acoustic Music Association partnership, to repay to the European Commission the amount of EUR 31 136.23, together with interest at the rate of 7.70% per annum as of 14 January 2008 until the debt is fully discharged;

3. Orders Ms Hildibrandsdottir to pay the costs.

4. Dismisses Ms Hildibrandsdottir’s application for legal aid.
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 27, 29, 40, 42)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Decisions of the Office – Observance of the rights of the defence – Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see paras 51-52)

3. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 – Scope identical to that of Article 253 EC (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 57)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Case R 1117/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Toro and Sociedad Agricola Requingua Ltda.

Information relating to the case

>lt>8

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sociedad Agricola Requingua Ltda to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c))

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Mark devoid of distinctive character – Exception – Acquisition of distinctive character through use

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3))

Summary

1. The word sign TDI, registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought for ‘vehicles and constructive parts thereof’ in Class 12 of the Nice Agreement, may serve to designate, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, the essential characteristics of the goods and services referred to in the trade mark application.

As regards vehicles, that word sign, which is an abbreviation of ‘turbo diesel injection’ or ‘turbo direct injection’, designates the quality, given that being equipped with a ‘turbo diesel injection’ or ‘turbo direct injection’ engine is an essential characteristic of a vehicle. As regards constructive parts for vehicles, the word sign TDI designates the type of goods.

In addition, the sign TDI is descriptive of the goods concerned in the entire European Union. Since the vehicles are, in principle, sold under the same names on the entire internal market, there is no difference between the various parts of the European Union in terms of the relevant public’s understanding of the meaning of that sign and of the link between that sign and the goods in respect of which registration is sought.

(see paras 18-19)

2. A mark can be registered by virtue of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark only if evidence is provided that it has acquired, through the use which has been made of it, distinctive character in the part of the European Union in which it did not, ab initio , have such character. The part of the European Union referred to in Article 7(2) may be comprised of a single Member State.

It is thus in all the Member States of the European Union in which the mark applied for did not, ab initio , have distinctive character that it must have become distinctive through use in order to be registrable under Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009. Furthermore, the evidence adduced with regard to certain Member States is not capable of proving that the sign has acquired distinctive character in the other Member States of the European Union.

(see paras 46-47)
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 25, 33-34, 57, 66-67

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2009 (Case R 1047/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

Information relating to the case

>lt>12

Operative part

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 28 September 2009 (Case R 1047/2008-4) 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;

3. Orders ATB Norte, SL, Bricocenter Italia and OHIM each to bear their own costs incurred during the proceedings before the General Court.
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 28, 61-62, 66

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 (Case R 44/2008‑4) concerning opposition proceedings between DeguDent GmbH and Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG.

Operative part

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 23 July 2009 (Case R 44/2008‑4) in so far as the Board of Appeal omitted to rule on the action brought before it as regards goods in Class 5;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG, DeguDent Gmbh and OHIM each to bear their 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 enjoying a reputation

–

Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services

–

Conditions (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b) and (5)) (see paras 29-31

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 February 2009 (Case R 554/2008‑2) relating to opposition proceedings between Nike International Ltd and Mustapha El Jirari Bouzekri.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), of 25 February 2009 (Case R 554/2008-2);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mustapha El Jirari Bouzekri. Nike International is ordered to pay its own 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 23, 32

)
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 27, 28, 43-45

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 July 2009 (Case R 1234/2008‑4) concerning opposition proceedings between Abbott Laboratories and Retractable Technologies, Inc.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Retractable Technologies, Inc. to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2012 — DEI v Commission

(Case T-421/09)

‛Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Greek markets for the supply of lignite and wholesale electricity — Decision establishing specific measures to correct the anti-competitive effects of an infringement of Article 86(1) EC, in conjunction with Article 82 EC, identified in an earlier decision — Article 86(3) EC — Annulment of the earlier decision’

Actions for annulment — Contested act — Decision establishing measures to correct an anti-competitive infringement found in an earlier annulled decision — No legal basis — Annulment (Art. 86(3) EC; Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 38-40)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 6244 final of 4 August 2009 establishing specific measures to correct the anti-competitive effects of the infringement identified in the Commission Decision of 5 March 2008 on the granting or maintaining in force by the Hellenic Republic of rights in favour of DEI for the extraction of lignite.

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2009) 6244 final of 4 August 2009 establishing specific measures to correct the anti-competitive effects of the infringement identified in the Commission Decision of 5 March 2008 on the granting or maintaining in force by the Hellenic Republic of rights in favour of Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) for the extraction of lignite;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by DEI, in addition to bearing its own;

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2012 — DEI v Commission

(Case T-421/09)

‛Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Greek markets for the supply of lignite and wholesale electricity — Decision establishing specific measures to correct the anti-competitive effects of an infringement of Article 86(1) EC, in conjunction with Article 82 EC, identified in an earlier decision — Article 86(3) EC — Annulment of the earlier decision’

Actions for annulment — Contested act — Decision establishing measures to correct an anti-competitive infringement found in an earlier annulled decision — No legal basis — Annulment (Art. 86(3) EC; Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 38-40)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 6244 final of 4 August 2009 establishing specific measures to correct the anti-competitive effects of the infringement identified in the Commission Decision of 5 March 2008 on the granting or maintaining in force by the Hellenic Republic of rights in favour of DEI for the extraction of lignite.

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2009) 6244 final of 4 August 2009 establishing specific measures to correct the anti-competitive effects of the infringement identified in the Commission Decision of 5 March 2008 on the granting or maintaining in force by the Hellenic Republic of rights in favour of Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) for the extraction of lignite;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by DEI, in addition to bearing its own;