ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-29/02

Global Electronic Finance Management (GEF) SA

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Arbitration clause – Non-performance of contract – Counterclaim)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), 15 March 2005

Summary of the Judgment

1. Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance to hear a counterclaim – Basis

(Art. 238 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 113; Council Decision 88/591, Art. 3(1)(c))

2. Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause – Application of the national law governing the contract – Interpretation of the contract in the light of its context – Contract granting Community financial assistance in return for undertakings given by the recipient – Non-implementation

3. Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause – Contract providing for Community financial assistance for a research and development project – Request for reimbursement of certain costs – Counterclaim by the Commission for reimbursement of overpayment

(Art. 238 EC; Council Decisions 94/763 and 94/802)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2005 − Duarte y Beltrán v OHIM – Mirato (INTEA)

(Case T‑353/02)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark INTEA – Earlier national word marks INTESA – Refusal of registration – Relative ground for refusal – 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 – Word marks INTEA and INTESA (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34-35)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 August 2002 (Case R 407/2001-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Duarte y Beltrán SA and Mirato SpA

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Duarte y Beltrán SA Community trade mark sought: Word mark INTEA for goods in Classes 3, 16 and 21 – Application No 99747 Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: MIRATO SpA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Two Italian trade marks, an international trade mark, together with a Greek trade mark, a Finnish trade mark, a Swedish trade mark, a United Kingdom trade mark and an Irish trade mark INTESA for goods in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 21 as regards the two Italian trade marks, and for goods in Class 3 as regards the others Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition accepted in part (likelihood of confusion concerning goods in Class 3) Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal rejected





Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2007 – Ente per le Ville vesuviane v Commission

(Case T-189/02)

European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) – Ending of Community financial assistance – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Status to act of ultimate beneficiary of assistance – Direct link – Rights of the defence – Infringement of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 as amended – No inquiry

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 37-53)

2. Economic and social cohesion – European Regional Development Fund –Grant of financial assistance for projects decided by the Commission before 1 January 1989 (Council Regulation No 4254/88, as amended by Regulation No 2083/93, Art. 12) (see paras 62-77)

3. Economic and social cohesion – European Regional Development Fund – Decision to end financial assistance – Defence rights of aid beneficiary – Scope (Council Regulation No 4254/88, as amended by Regulation No 2083/93, Art. 12) (see paras 87-100)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision D(2002) 810111 of 13 March 2002, purporting to end financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the form of investment in infrastructure in Campania (Italy) relating to an integrated scheme of development of three Vesuvian towns for the purposes of tourism (ERDF No 86/05/04/054).

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Challenging the Board of Appeal’s definition of the relevant public for the purposes of the examination of the distinctive character of the mark applied for – Change in the subject-matter of the dispute – None

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

Summary

It is for the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to ascertain the relevant public in the course of its examination of distinctive character, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, of a sign for which registration as a mark is sought.

By challenging the Board of Appeal’s definition of the relevant public for the purposes of the examination of the distinctive character of the mark applied for in breach of Article 135(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the applicant is not asking the Court to rule on questions which are different from those brought before the Board of Appeal.

(see paras 34-35)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Legality of a decision of a Board of Appeal – Challenged by the adducing of new facts – Condition governing admissibility – Opposition proceedings

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 63 and 74(1))

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the holder of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word mark ‘GAS STATION’ and figurative mark ‘BLUE JEANS GAS’

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

Summary

1. The purpose of actions brought before the Court of First Instance challenging decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is to review the legality of those decisions within the meaning of Article 63 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. Facts which are pleaded before the Court without having previously been brought before the departments of the Office can affect the legality of such a decision only if the Office should have taken them into account of its own motion.

It follows from the concluding words of Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94, according to which, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, the Office is to be restricted in its examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought, that the Office is not required to take into account of its own motion facts which have not been put forward by the parties. Therefore, such facts cannot affect the legality of a decision of the Board of Appeal.

(see para. 13)

2. For Italian consumers, there is a likelihood of confusion between the word mark ‘GAS STATION’, registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought for ‘clothing, footwear, headgear’ falling within Class 25 of the Nice Agreement, and the figurative mark including the verbal component ‘BLUE JEANS GAS’, registered previously in Italy for ‘trousers, jackets, jeans, shirts, skirts, heavy jackets, jerseys, sweaters, short coats, socks, shoes, boots, slippers’ falling within the same class.

First, the goods covered by the marks at issue are identical or similar. Second, the opposing signs are, as regards their dominant component, which lies in the word ‘gas’, visually, aurally and conceptually identical. As regards the signs taken as a whole, the differences constituted by the secondary graphic component ‘BLUE JEANS’ and the secondary verbal component ‘station’ will not be kept in mind by the relevant public which will retain the component ‘gas’.

(see paras 31, 34, 36-37, 39)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks ALREX and ARTEX

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

Summary

There is for professionals in the medical sector (specialist doctors, general practitioners and pharmacists) and patients a likelihood of confusion between the word sign ALREX, for which registration as a Community trade mark is sought for ‘antiallergic, steroidal, ophthalmic preparations, namely eye drops, solutions, gels and ointments used for the treatment of eye infection and inflammation’ in Class 5 of the Nice Agreement, and the word mark ARTEX, previously registered in France, the Benelux countries and in Portugal for ‘Pharmaceutical speciality used in the cardiovascular field; pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary products; material for stopping teeth, dental wax’ coming within the same class, since having regard to, firstly, the high degree of similarity between the signs in question and, secondly, the degree of similarity between the goods concerned, the differences between them are not sufficient to remove a likelihood of confusion in the perception of the relevant public.

(see paras 46, 58, 61)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(d) and 51(1)(a))

2. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a))

Summary

1. The term WEISSE SEITEN should not have been registered as a Community trade mark as regards ‘magnetic data carriers and recorded storage media for data processing installations and equipment, in particular tapes, discs, CD-ROMs’ and ‘printed matter, reference works, classified directories’ in Classes 9 and 16, respectively, of the Nice Agreement by reason of the absolute ground for refusal in Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark relating to the customary nature of the trade mark, since it was established that, for the average German-speaking consumer, the term ‘weiβe Seiten’ had become customary, on the date on which the application for registration of the mark was lodged, as a generic term for the telephone directory for private individuals not only on paper, but also in electronic form.

(see paras 66, 71-72)

2. The term WEISSE SEITEN should not have been registered as regards ‘magnetic data carriers and recorded storage media for data processing installations and equipment, in particular tapes, discs, CD-ROMs’; ‘paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter, reference works, classified directories; artists’ materials; office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus)’; ‘publishing services, in particular the publication of texts, books, magazines, newspapers’ and ‘editing of written texts’ in Classes 9, 16, 41 and 42, respectively, of the Nice Agreement by reason of the absolute ground for refusal in Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark relating to the descriptive nature of the trade mark, since, from the point of view of the average German-speaking consumer, the link between the mark and the characteristics of all the goods and services in dispute is sufficiently close to fall within the scope of the prohibition laid down in that provision.

(see para. 108)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)b)

Summary

For average Spanish consumers, there is a likelihood of confusion between, on the one hand, the figurative marks VENADO with frame, VENADO and VENADO ESPECIAL including the representation of a deer’s head facing forward in a circle, registration of which as Community trade marks is applied for in respect of ‘Mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups and other preparations for making beverages’ and ‘Rum, rum liqueurs and aguardientes’ within Classes 32 and 33 respectively of the Nice Agreement, and, on the other hand, the figurative mark representing a deer’s head facing forward in a circle, previously registered as a Community trade mark in respect of ‘Non-alcoholic beverages’ and ‘Wines, sparkling wines, fruit wines, fruit sparkling wines, spirits’ within the same Classes of that Agreement.

Given that the goods concerned are to a large extent identical and very similar as to the remainder, and in view of the visual, phonetic and conceptual similarities between the conflicting marks, the differences between them are not sufficient to eliminate the existence of a likelihood of confusion on the part of that relevant public. In particular, the visual differences between the signs are not in themselves sufficient to eliminate any likelihood of confusion on the part of that public. In the first place, given that the average consumer retains only an imperfect image of the mark in his mind, it cannot be considered that he would be able to recall figurative details of the signs in question. Moreover, the word elements (‘venado’, ‘venado especial’) appearing only in the marks applied for will be understood by the average Spanish-speaking consumer as a direct reference to the figurative part of those marks. Secondly, and above all, the visual differences between the marks are offset by the identity of many of the goods concerned and the similarity of the other goods concerned and by the phonetic and conceptual similarity of those marks for the relevant Spanish-speaking public

(see paras 101-103, 107-108)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Separate examination of the various grounds for refusal

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1))

2. 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))

Summary

1. Each of the grounds for refusal to register listed in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark is independent of the others and requires separate examination. Moreover, it is necessary to interpret those grounds for refusal in the light of the general interest which underlies each of them. The general interest to be taken into consideration when examining each of those grounds for refusal may, or even must, reflect different considerations, depending on the ground for refusal in question. However, there is a clear overlap in scope between the grounds for refusal set out in subparagraphs (b) to (d) of that provision. In particular, a word mark which is descriptive of the characteristics of goods or services for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 is, on that account, necessarily devoid of any distinctive character in relation to those goods or services within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of the same regulation.

(see paras 33-34)

2. The word mark map & guide, for which registration is sought under ‘computer software’ and ‘computer programming’ in Classes 9 and 42 respectively of the Nice Agreement is devoid of distinctive character in relation to the goods concerned within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark since, for the average consumer from the English-speaking general public, the sign is descriptive of the goods and services covered by the application for registration. In the English‑speaking zone of the Community, the sign may serve to designate computer software and computer programming services the function of which is to provide (city) maps and (travel) guides. It follows that the semantic content of the sign map & guide enables the relevant public to establish immediately, and without reflection, a specific and direct relationship with the computer software and the computer programming services for computers providing the function of (city) maps and (travel) guides.

(see paras 47, 51)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability

–

Conditions

–

Sufficiently serious breach of Community law (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 37, 47-53, 61-63, 135-137

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for compensation for the damage allegedly caused by the Commission’s purportedly unlawful action in the face of retaliatory trade measures taken by the United States of America in the so-called case on ‘beef having a hormonal action’.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the applicants jointly and severally to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain 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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 96, 98, 102-103, 106

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 September 2003 (Case R 191/2002-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg. Co. Ltd.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg. Co. Ltd to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 7 February 2006 − Alecansan v OHIM

(Case T-202/03)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the figurative Community trade mark COMP USA – Earlier national figurative mark COMP USA – Lack of similarity of the goods and services – Rejection of the opposition – 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 49, 51)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2003 (Case R 711/2002-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Alecansan, SL, and CompUSA Management Co.

Information relating to the case:

Applicant for the Community trade mark: CompUSA Management Co. Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark ‘COMP USA’ – Application No 2.133.202 for goods in Classes 9 and 37 (computer hardware and software) Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Alecansan, SL Mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: English figurative mark ‘COMP USA’, for goods in Class 39 (transport) Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 – Nikolaou v Commission

(Case T-259/03)

Non-contractual liability – Inquiry of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) concerning a Member of the Court of Auditors – Divulging of information – Protection of personal information – Access to the inquiry file and to OLAF’s report – Sufficiently serious breach of the rules of law conferring rights on individuals – Causal link – Loss

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Illegality – Damage – Causal link (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 37-38, 141-142)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule conferring rights on individuals – Hearing (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 39-44)

3. Non-contractual liability – Compensation for damage caused by servants of the Community in the performance of their duties (Art. 288, second para., EC; European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1073/1999, Art. 8(3), and No 45/2001, Arts 2(a) and (b), 3, 4(1) and (5)) (see paras 193-199)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule conferring rights on individuals (Art. 288, second para., EC; European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1073/1999, Art. 8(3), and No 45/2001, Arts 2, 3, 4(1) and 5(a) and (e)) (see paras 200-216, 230-233)

5. European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) – Regulation No 1073/1999 concerning investigations conducted by OLAF (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1073/1999) (see paras 236-246, 250-251)

6. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Damage – Causal link (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 304, 320, 330, 333)

Re:

ACTION for damages, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, for the loss suffered by the applicant following publication of information concerning an inquiry carried out concerning her by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and OLAF’s refusal to grant her access to the inquiry file and to supply her with a copy of its final report.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders the Commission to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 3 000;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;