ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 19-26)

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 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 40-43, 67, 69)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 May 2009 (Case R 1021/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida, S. Coop. Ltda and Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida, SL.

Information relating to the case

>lt>7

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida, SL 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 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 1048/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

Information relating to the case

>lt>13

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 1048/2008-4) 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 100-101

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2009 (Case R 1380/2007‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Bahn AG and DSB.

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 30 April 2009 (Case R 1380/2007-1) and the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 26 July 2007;

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Deutsche Bahn AG for the purposes of the present court proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

3. Orders OHIM and DSB to bear their own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 20-23)

2. 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 (see paras 39-40, 83)

3. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Extrapolation of findings of deficiencies in the control system of a Member State from one region to other regions – Lawfulness – Conditions (see paras 58-64)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/253/EC of 19 March 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) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2009 L 75, p. 15), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Slovenia.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Slovenia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.
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, 49, 54, 59, 63-64

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2008 (Case R 1152/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Metaform Lucchese SpA and Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co KG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG to pay the 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 16, 36

)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions – New plea – Concept (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2)) (see paras 31-35, 87)

2. State aid – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – Duty to state reasons – Scope – Assessment of the private creditor criterion (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 37-38, 54, 67)

3. State aid – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – Duty to state reasons – Scope – Characterisation of adverse effect on competition and the effects on trade between Member States (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 76-77, 81)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/612/EC of 10 March 2009 relating to measure C 5/2000 (ex NN 118/1997) implemented by Spain in favour of Sniace, SA, Torrelavega, Cantabria, and amending Decision 1999/395/EC (OJ 2009 L 210, p. 4).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sniace SA to bear its own costs and, in addition, to pay the European Commission’s costs, including those incurred in the application for interim measures.
—

the degree of protection enjoyed by the third party’s sign and by the sign for which registration is sought. The intention to prevent a third party from marketing a product may, in certain circumstances, be an element of bad faith on the part of an applicant. That is in particular the case when it becomes apparent, subsequently, that the applicant applied for registration of a sign as a Community trade mark without intending to use it, his sole objective being to prevent a third party from entering the market. However, the applicant may also pursue a legitimate objective in wishing to protect himself from an attempt by a third-party who, by its recent arrival on the market, seeks to take advantage of the reputation of the applicant’s sign. That said, that the factors set out above are only examples drawn from a number of factors which can be taken into account in order to decide whether the applicant for registration was acting in bad faith at the time of filing the application. (see paras 33-36)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 1 February 2012 — mtronix v OHIM — Growth Finance (mtronix)

(Case T-353/09)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark mtronix — Earlier Community word mark Montronix — 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 28, 49-52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2009 (Case R 1557/2007-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Growth Finance AG and mtronix OHG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders mtronix OHG to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 1 February 2012 — mtronix v OHIM — Growth Finance (mtronix)

(Case T-353/09)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark mtronix — Earlier Community word mark Montronix — 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 28, 49-52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2009 (Case R 1557/2007-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Growth Finance AG and mtronix OHG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Four conditions must be satisfied before the period of limitation in consequence of acquiescence starts running if there is use of a later trade mark which is identical with the earlier trade mark or confusingly similar. First, the later trade mark must be registered. Second, the application for its registration must have been made by its proprietor in good faith. Third, the later trade mark must be used in the Member State where the earlier trade mark is protected. Fourth, the proprietor of the earlier trade mark must be aware of the use of that trade mark after its registration.

The aim of Article 53(2) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark is to penalise the proprietors of earlier trade marks who have acquiesced, for a period of five successive years, in the use of a later Community trade mark while being aware of such use, by excluding them from seeking a declaration of invalidity or from bringing opposition proceedings in respect of that trade mark, which will then therefore be able to coexist with the earlier trade mark. It is from the time when the proprietor of the earlier trade mark becomes aware of the use of the later Community trade mark that it has the option of not acquiescing in its use and, therefore, opposing it or seeking a declaration of invalidity of the later trade mark. It may not be held that the proprietor of the earlier trade mark acquiesced in the use of the later Community trade mark once it was aware of its use, if it was not in a position to oppose its use or to seek a declaration of invalidity thereof.

It follows from a teleological interpretation of Article 53(2) of Regulation No 40/94 that the relevant date from which the period of limitation in consequence of acquiescence starts running is when the proprietor becomes aware of the use of that mark. That date must necessarily be later than that of registration of the trade mark, that is to say when the rights in a Community trade mark are obtained (see recital 7 of Regulation No 40/94), and that mark will be used as a registered trade mark on the market with third parties therefore being aware of its use. Therefore, it is from the time when the proprietor of the earlier trade mark is made aware of the use of the later Community trade mark, after its registration, and not the date on which the application for the Community trade mark is filed, that the period of limitation in consequence of acquiescence starts running.

(see paras 31-33)
Keywords



Keywords

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)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 — Producteurs de légumes de France v Commission

(Case T-328/09)

‛State aid — Fruit and vegetable sector — ‘Contingency plans’ aimed at supporting the fruit and vegetable market in France — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market — Legitimate expectation — Material error in the calculation of the amounts to be recovered’

1. Community law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions (see paras 18-19)

2. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Aid granted in breach of the procedural rules under Article 88 EC — Legitimate expectations entertained by the recipients — Protection — Conditions and limits — Inaction on the part of the Commission — No legitimate expectations — Exceptional circumstances — None (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC) (see paras 20-22, 26-30)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 203 final of 28 January 2009 on the ‘contingency plans’ in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by the French Republic.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Producteurs de légumes de France to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 — Producteurs de légumes de France v Commission

(Case T-328/09)

‛State aid — Fruit and vegetable sector — ‘Contingency plans’ aimed at supporting the fruit and vegetable market in France — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market — Legitimate expectation — Material error in the calculation of the amounts to be recovered’

1. Community law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions (see paras 18-19)

2. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Aid granted in breach of the procedural rules under Article 88 EC — Legitimate expectations entertained by the recipients — Protection — Conditions and limits — Inaction on the part of the Commission — No legitimate expectations — Exceptional circumstances — None (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC) (see paras 20-22, 26-30)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 203 final of 28 January 2009 on the ‘contingency plans’ in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by the French Republic.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Morte Navarro v Parliament

(Case T-280/09)

‛Petition addressed to the European Parliament — Decision to take no further action on the petition — Action for annulment — Act adversely affecting an official — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Petition not falling within an area of activity of the European Union’

1. Judicial proceedings — 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 — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissibility — Content of the application sufficiently clear — Petition annexed unclear — Admissibility (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) and (d)) (see paras 19-21)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the Parliament to take no action on a petition — Inclusion (Arts 227 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see para. 25)

3. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Claim for a declaratory judgment — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 27)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the Parliament to take no action on a petition (Arts 227 TFEU and 296 TFEU; European Parliament Regulation, Art. 191(6)) (see paras 32-41, 44)

5. EU law — Principles — Equal treatment — Concept — Limits (see para. 47)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions of 5 May 2009 to take no further action on the petition submitted by the applicant on 17 December 2008 (petition No 1818/2008).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2016 — DEI v Commission

(Case T‑421/09 RENV)

(Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Greek market for the supply of lignite and Greek wholesale electricity market — Decision establishing specific measures to correct the anti-competitive effects of an infringement of Article 86(1) EC, in conjunction with Article 82 EC — Article 86(3) EC — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Freedom of contract)

1. Acts of the institutions—Statement of reasons—Obligation—Scope—Decision to apply competition rules (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 109, 110)

2. Actions for annulment—Grounds—Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons—Separate ground from the one concerning substantive legality (Arts 230 EC and 253 EC) (see para. 111)

3. EU law—Principles—Fundamental rights—Contractual freedom—Restrictions—Lawfulness—Conditions—Restrictions made in application of the competition rules (Art. 6(3) TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 16; Art. 86(3) EC) (see paras 130-144)

4. Competition—Public undertakings and undertakings enjoying special or exclusive rights granted by the Member States—Powers of the Commission by virtue of its duty of surveillance—Decision establishing specific measures to remedy the anti-competitive effects of a breach of the competition rules—No breach of principle of proportionality (Art. 86(3) EC) (see paras 147-162)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the 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.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2010 – Valigeria Roncato v OHIM – Roncato (CARLO RONCATO)

(Case T-124/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for community word mark CARLO RONCATO – Unregistered national figurative and word marks RV RONCATO and RONCATO – Earlier national figurative and word marks RV RONCATO and RONCATO – No likelihood of unfair advantage being taken of the distinctive character and repute of the earlier marks – Due cause for the use of the mark applied for – Relative grounds for refusal – Article 8(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. 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)

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

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Roncato Srl Community trade mark sought: Word mark CARLO RONCATO for goods in Classes 3, 9 and 14 – Application No 4631719 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Valigeria Roncato SpA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian figurative mark RV RONCATO (No 622773), Italian word mark RONCATO (No 510528) and non‑registered Italian figurative marks RV RONCATO Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition dismissed; Application for registration upheld in its entirety





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;