ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2007 – DeTeMedien v OHIM (suchen.de)

(Case T-117/06)

(Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark suchen.de –

Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Domain name – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) 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 30, 32-33, 37-38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2006 (Case R 287/2005-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign suchen.de as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: DeTeMedien Deutsche Telekom Medien GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark suchen.de for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42 – Application No 3915329 Decision of the Examiner: Registration partially refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2008 – Sviluppo Italia Basilicata v Commission

(Case T-176/06)

European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) – Reduction in financial assistance – Application for annulment – Venture capital fund – Deadline for the completion of investment projects – Procedure – Principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty – Principle of proportionality – Statement of reasons – Action for damages

1. Economic and social cohesion – European Regional Development Fund – Decision to reduce financial assistance (Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24) (see paras 42-59)

2. Economic and social cohesion – European Regional Development Fund – Decision to reduce financial assistance (Council Regulation No 4253/88, Arts 25 and 26) (see paras 78-82, 89-92)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see points 97-102)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Commission decision reducing financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (Art. 288, second para., EC; Council Regulation No 4253/88) (see paras 116-118)

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Decision C(2006) 1706 of 20 April 2006 reducing the financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund in favour of an overall allocation for the purpose of implementing measures to support small and medium-sized enterprises operating in the Basilicata Region of Italy, granted under the Community support framework for Community structural assistance in the regions of Italy covered by Objective 1, and application for damages for the harm caused by that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 10 June 2008 – Novartis v OHIM (BLUE SOFT)

(Case T-330/06)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark BLUE SOFT – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 46-47, 54)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2006 (Case R 270/2006‑1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BLUE SOFT as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Novartis AG Community trade mark sought: Word mark BLUE SOFT for goods in Class 9 (Application No 3007846) 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 (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 – Italy v Commission

(Case T-181/06)

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Financial adjustments – Fruit and vegetables – Dairy products – Arable farming – Rural development – Non-compliance with payment deadlines

1. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Fruit and vegetables – Producers’ organisations (Council Regulations No 2988/95, Art. 2(1), and No 2200/96, Art. 13(2)) (see paras 39-47)

2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Fruit and vegetables –Regulation No 2200/96 (Council Regulation No 2200/96, Art. 30(1) and (2); Commission Regulation No 659/97, Art. 17(2)) (see paras 57-61)

3. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules (see para. 65)

4. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Accounts clearance procedure – Conciliation procedure – Opinion of the conciliation body (see para. 68)

5. Agriculture – EAGGF – Granting of assistance and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an efficient system of administrative and on‑the‑spot controls (see para. 160)

6. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Principles – Refusal to finance irregular expenses (see paras 181-184)

7. Agriculture – EAGGF – Granting of assistance and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an efficient system of administrative and on‑the‑spot controls – Scope (Commission Regulation No 3887/92, Art. 6(1)) (see para. 195)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/334/EC of 28 April 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 124, p. 21) in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic in the sectors of fruit and vegetables, milk and dairy products, arable farming, rural development as well as concerning payment deadlines.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 12 November 2008 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-406/06)

Public service contracts – Invitation to tender concerning support services for the system of registries established under Directive 2003/87/EC – Rejection of a tender – Decision to award the contract to another tenderer – Manifest error of assessment – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Claim for damages

1. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision in an award procedure for a public service contract, to reject a tender (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(2) and (3), third para.) (see paras 47-50, 99-100, 106-107, 110-111)

2. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see para. 64)

3. European Communities’ public procurement – Tendering procedure – Duty to comply with the principles of equal treatment of tenderers and transparency in order to ensure an undistorted system of competition (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 89(1)) (see paras 82-86)

Re:

APPLICATION for, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 October 2006 to reject the applicant’s offer in a call for tenders for support services for the system of registries established under Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32), the Community independent transaction log (CITL), with technical maintenance and user support (OJ 2006 S 102), and an application for annulment of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, a claim for damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 26 November 2008 – Rajani v OHIM – Artoz-Papier (ATOZ)

(Case T-100/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark ATOZ – Earlier international word mark ARTOZ – No requirement to provide evidence of genuine use – Starting point for the five-year time-limit – Date of registration of the earlier mark – Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Articles 73 and 79 of Regulation No 40/94 and Article 6 of the ECHR

1. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 35, 43-45, 49)

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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 65-66)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 1126/2004-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Artoz Papier AG and Deepak Rajani.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Deepak Rajani Community trade mark sought: Word mark ATOZ for services in Classes 35 and 41 – Application No 1319961 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Artoz-Papier AG Mark or sign cited in opposition: International word mark ARTOZ for services in Classes 35 and 41 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
148

Moreover, according to case-law, the obligation to state reasons laid down in that provision, which merely reiterates the general obligation laid down in Article 253 EC, constitutes an essential principle of Community law which may be derogated from only for compelling reasons (Huygens v Commission, paragraph 37 above, paragraph 105 and the case-law cited), as the Tribunal correctly pointed out in paragraph 61 of the judgment under appeal. As was pointed out in paragraph 108 above, the requirement to state reasons is intended, on the one hand, to provide the person concerned with details sufficient to allow him to ascertain whether the decision is well founded or whether it is vitiated by an error which will allow its legality to be contested and, on the other, to enable the court to review the legality of the decision (Michel v Parliament, paragraph 37 above, paragraph 22). That requirement also helps to guarantee the right to effective judicial protection, a general principle of Community law stemming from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, which has been enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and which has been reaffirmed by Article 47 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited). The importance of the requirement to state the reasons on which decisions adopted in the framework of employment relationships are based has also been highlighted by the Court of Justice, which held that effective judicial review, which must be able to cover the legality of the reasons for the contested decision, presupposes in general that the court to which the matter is referred may require the competent authority to notify its reasons. With regard, more particularly, to securing the effective protection of a fundamental right conferred by the Treaty on community workers, the latter must also be able to defend that right under the best possible conditions and have the possibility of deciding, with a full knowledge of the relevant facts, whether there is any point in their applying to the courts (Case 222/86 Heylens and Others [1987] ECR 4097, paragraph 15).
3

Protocol No 8 on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry, annexed to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 948; ‘Protocol No 8’), authorised the Republic of Poland, in derogation from the general rules on State aid, to grant aid for the restructuring of its steel sector in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in the restructuring plan and the conditions stipulated in that protocol. It provides inter alia as follows: ‘1. Notwithstanding Articles 87 [EC] and 88 [EC], State aid granted by [the Republic of] Poland for restructuring purposes to specified parts of the Polish steel industry shall be deemed to be compatible with the common market provided that: — the period provided for in Article 8(4) of Protocol [No] 2... has been extended until the date of accession, — the terms set out in the restructuring plan on the basis of which the abovementioned Protocol was extended are adhered to throughout the period 2002-06, — the conditions set out in this Protocol are met, and — no State aid for restructuring is to be paid to the Polish steel industry after the date of accession. 2. … 3. Only companies listed in Annex 1 (hereinafter referred to as “benefiting companies”) shall be eligible for State aid in the framework of the Polish steel restructuring programme. 4. A benefiting company may not: (a) in the case of a merger with a company not included in Annex 1, pass on the benefit of the aid granted to the benefiting company; (b) take over the assets of any company not included in Annex 1 which is declared bankrupt in the period up to 31 December 2006. 5. … 6. The restructuring aid granted to the benefiting companies shall be determined by the justifications set out in the approved Polish steel restructuring plan and individual business plans as approved by the Council. But in any case the aid paid out in the period of 1997-2003 and in its total amount shall not exceed PLN 3387070000. … No further State aid shall be granted by [the Republic of] Poland for restructuring purposes to the Polish steel industry. … 10. Any subsequent changes in the overall restructuring plan and the individual plans must be agreed by the Commission and, where appropriate, by the Council. … 18. Should the monitoring show that: … (c) [the Republic of] Poland in the course of the restructuring period has granted additional incompatible State aid to the steel industry and to the benefiting companies in particular, the transitional arrangements contained in this Protocol shall not have effect. The Commission shall take appropriate steps requiring any company concerned to reimburse any aid granted in breach of the conditions laid down in this Protocol.’
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 July 2010 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v AEE

(Case T-331/06)

Public service contracts – EEA tendering procedure – Provision of information technology consultancy services – Rejection of the tender – Action for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Court – Award criteria set out in the tender specifications – Sub‑criteria – Manifest error of assessment – Duty to state reasons

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects – Measures adopted by the European Environment Agency (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 31-32, 34-35, 38-39)

2. Community law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – Applicability to measures adopted by agencies established on the basis of secondary law producing legal effects vis-à-vis third parties (see paras 33, 37)

3. European Communities' public procurement – Tender procedure – Selection and award criteria – Obligation of prior definition – Obligation to comply with the principles of equal treatment and transparency – Scope (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 89 and 97(1); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 138(3)) (see paras 59-61)

4. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision in a procedure for the award of a public service contract not to accept a tender – Assessment having regard to information at the disposal of the applicant at the time of the bringing of the action (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149) (see paras 120-123)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the EEA of 14 September 2006 to reject the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure EEA/IDS/06/002 relating to the provision of information technology consultancy services (OJ 2006 S 118‑125101) and to award the public contract to other tenderers.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 – Viega v Commission

(Case T-375/06)

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Copper and copper alloy fittings sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Participation in the infringement – Duty to state reasons – Fines – Relevant turnover – Attenuating circumstances

1. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Burden of proof – Degree of precision required of the evidence used by the Commission (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 32-34)

2. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements between undertakings – Burden of proof – Statement of an incriminated undertaking challenged by other parties to the same agreement – Probative value – Assessment (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 35)

3. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding an infringement – Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission – Extent of the burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 36)

4. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Participation of an undertaking in anti-competitive initiatives – Tacit approval without public distancing sufficient to render the undertaking liable (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 52)

5. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement – Burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC)) (see para. 70)

6. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Relevant market – Delimitation – Criteria (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 81)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 – Fittings), and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

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

–

Relative ground for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40-42, 45-52

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2007 (Case R 10/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Scil proteins GmbH and Indena SpA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>9

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 23 January 2007 (Case R 10/2006-2) in so far as it dismisses the opposition with respect to the following goods: ‘extracts of medicinal plants for use in the pharmaceutical, cosmetic and food industries, not for diagnostic purposes’;

2. Orders OHIM 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 51-57

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2006 (Case R 1343/2005-4), relating to opposition proceedings between FVD Gesellschaft für Finanzplanung und Vorsorgemanagement Deutschland mbH and FVB Gesellschaft für Finanz- und Versorgungsberatung mbH.

Information relating to the case

>lt>9

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders FVB Gesellschaft für Finanz- und Versorgungsberatung mbH 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 43, 71

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 October 2006 (Case R 168/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Fundacion Gala-Salvador Dalí.

Information relating to the case

>lt>11

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Miguel Torres, SA 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 46-48)

2. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 29-31)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2007 (Case R 1342/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Dada Srl and Dada SpA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>14

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dada 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 39, 41-43, 50, 53-55

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 August 2007 (Case R 30/2007-4) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a colour sign composed of 24 coloured squares.

Information relating to the case

>lt>18

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders GretagMacbeth LLC to pay the costs.