ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Union public contracts – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Criteria for selecting candidates – Assessment of the candidates’ capacity to provide specified services – Award criteria – Comparative assessment of the particular characteristics and merits of individual tenders – Application of a criterion for assessing the capacity of the candidates to perform a contract during the contract attribution phase – Not permissible (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 97(1) and (2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 138) (see paras 17-24, 38-40, 42)

2. European Union public contracts – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions (see paras 21, 47)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Burden of proof – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 45-47)

Subject of the case

Re:

First, application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 12 November 2007 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in open call for tenders EAC/04/07 relating to the hosting, management, improvement, promotion and maintenance of the Commission’s internet portal for ‘e-learning’ (elearningeuropa.info) (OJ 2007 S 87), and awarding the contract to another tenderer, and, second, application for damages.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the Commission Decision of 12 November 2007 rejecting the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in open call for tenders EAC/04/07 relating to the hosting, management, enhancement, promotion and maintenance of the European Commission’s internet portal on eLearning (elearningeuropa.info), and awarding the contract to another tenderer;

2. Dismisses the application for damages;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2012 — Coverpla v OHIM – Heinz-Glas (Flacon)

(Case T-450/08)

‛Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a bottle — Prior design — Ground for invalidity — Disclosure of prior design — Absence of novelty — Articles 5 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002’

1. Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Disclosure by the designer or his successor in title — Proof of the disclosure (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 5(1)(b), and 7(1)) (see paras 20-23)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 July 2008 (Case R 1411/2007-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Heinz-Glas GmbH and Coverpla in respect of a Community design.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Coverpla to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2012 — Coverpla v OHIM – Heinz-Glas (Flacon)

(Case T-450/08)

‛Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a bottle — Prior design — Ground for invalidity — Disclosure of prior design — Absence of novelty — Articles 5 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002’

1. Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Disclosure by the designer or his successor in title — Proof of the disclosure (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 5(1)(b), and 7(1)) (see paras 20-23)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 July 2008 (Case R 1411/2007-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Heinz-Glas GmbH and Coverpla in respect of a Community design.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement borne by the Commission — Extent of the burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 68, 115)

2. Union law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Presumption of innocence — Procedures in competition matters — Decision finding an infringement but not imposing a fine — Applicability (Art. 81(1) EC; Art. 6(2) EU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48(1)) (see paras 69-73)

3. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Means of proof — Reliance on a body of evidence — Degree of evidential value necessary as regards items of evidence viewed in isolation — Evidence based solely on the conduct of undertakings — Evidential obligations of undertakings disputing the existence of the infringement — Obligations of the Commission challenging the plausibility of the explanations proposed by the undertakings (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 74-78, 84, 137)

4. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Agreements which continue to produce their effects after they have formally ceased to be in force — Application of Article 81 EC (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 100)

5. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Concerted practice — Parallel conduct — Presumption that a concertation exists — Limits — Refusal by national copyright management societies to allow a user established in another Member State direct access to their repertoire — Adverse effect on competition (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 114)

6. Actions for annulment — Judicial review — Limits on jurisdiction (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 159)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Tono;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs in the main proceedings;

4. Orders Tono and the Commission each to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings for interim relief.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2013 — Huvis v Council

(Case T‑536/08)

‛Dumping — Imports of polyester staple fibres originating in South Korea — Maintenance of anti-dumping duties following a partial interim review — Action for annulment — Direct and individual concern — Admissibility — Equal treatment and non-discrimination — Article 9(5) and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 9(5) and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Producer and exporter undertakings identified in the regulation or concerned by the preliminary investigations — Admissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 893/2008) (see paras 25-28)

2. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Principle of equal treatment in relation to imports from various countries — Scope in relation to products from various countries, all of which dumped, but some concerned by a re-examination procedure of a definitive duty and others by an initial investigation (Agreement on the implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ‘1994 Anti-dumping Agreement’, Art. 9.2; Council Regulations No 384/96, Arts 5, 9(2) and (5), 11(3), and 21, No 428/2005, No 893/2008 and No 1225/2009, Arts 5, 9(2) and (5), 11(3), and 21; Commission Decision 2007/430) (see paras 37-41, 43-48, 65)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 893/2008 of 10 September 2008 maintaining the anti-dumping duties on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in Belarus, the People’s Republic of China, Saudi Arabia and Korea following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2008 L 247, p. 1), as regards the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Huvis Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 – Hedgefund Intelligence v OHIM – Hedge Invest (InvestHedge)

(Case T-67/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark InvestHedge – Earlier Community figurative mark Hedge Invest – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – 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 33, 53-56)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2007 (Case R 148/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Hedge Invest SpA and Hedgefund Intelligence Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Hedgefund Intelligence Ltd Community trade mark sought: The figurative mark InvestHedge for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 36 and 41 – Application No 3081081 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Hedge Invest SpA Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Community figurative mark HEDGE INVEST for services in Class 36 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the contested services in Classes 36 and 41 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hedgefund Intelligence Ltd to pay the costs.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

6 October 2009

Case T-102/08 P

Asa Sundholm

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Civil service – Officials – Reports – Career development report drawn up in compliance with a judgment of the Tribunal – Appraisal year 2001/2002 – Justified absences – Obligation to state reasons)

Appeal: brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 in Case F-27/07 Sundholm v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held: The judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 in Case F-27/07 Sundholm v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 is set aside. The decision of 2 June 2006 by which the reporting officer on appeal established Ms Asa Sundholm's career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 is annulled. The remainder of the action brought at first instance is dismissed. The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay the costs of the procedure before the Civil Service Tribunal and of the present instance.

Summary

1. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Justified absences

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

2. Officials – Actions – Actions for damages – Annulment of the illegal act in dispute – Whether appropriate reparation for non-material damage

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

1. While an official’s justified absences cannot penalise him in the context of his assessment, his mark for efficiency may be increased to take account of the conditions in which he performed his duties despite having had less actual working time as a result of his absence. However, that factor is not automatically taken into account in the efficiency part of the overall mark, since it is merely an option for those drawing up the career development report, who must consider that possibility where circumstances warrant it.

In circumstances where the reporting officer and the countersigning officer have no reason to think that an official’s justified absences may have had a significant effect on his efficiency during the period covered by a career development report, they cannot be criticised for not having mentioned that fact or taken it into account in the comments on efficiency in the career development report.

(see paras 29, 39-40)

See: T‑277/03 Vlachaki v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑57 and II‑243, para. 83 and the case-law cited therein

2. The annulment of an act of the administration which has been challenged by an official in itself constitutes appropriate and, in principle, sufficient reparation for any non-material harm where that act does not contain an explicitly negative assessment of the applicant’s abilities capable of injuring him.

(see para. 47)

See: T‑155/03, T‑157/03 and T‑331/03 Cwik v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑411 and II‑1865, para. 205 and the case-law cited therein
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2009 – Mars v OHIM – Ludwig Schokolade (Shape of a chocolate bar)

(Case T-28/08)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community three-dimensional mark – Shape of a chocolate bar – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Lack of distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009) – Right to be heard – Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)

1. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 – Marks devoid of distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 30-34)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks which are devoid of distinctive character, descriptive or commonplace – Exception – Acquisition of distinctive character through usage (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7 (3)) (see paras 47, 54, 66, 68)

3. Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Observance of the rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see para. 89)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2007 (Case R 1325/2006-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ludwig Schokolade GmbH & Co. KG and Mars, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A three‑dimensional mark representing a chocolate bar for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30 – Community trade mark No 818864 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Mars, Inc. Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Ludwig Schokolade GmbH & Co. KG Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Cancellation Division’s decision and declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 11 November 2009 – Frag Comercio Internacional v OHIM – Tinkerbell Modas (GREEN by missako)

(Case T-162/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark GREEN by missako – Earlier national and Community figurative marks MI SA KO – No likelihood of confusion – 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 27, 52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 February 2008 (Case R 1527/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Tinkerbell Modas LTDA and Frag Comercio Internacional, SL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Tinkerbell Modas LTDA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark GREEN by missako for goods and services in Classes 3, 25, 35 – Application No 3663234 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Frag Comercio Internacional, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Community figurative trade mark MI SA KO for goods in Classes 18 and 25; the national figurative trade mark MI SA KO for services in Class 35 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 June 2010 – Actega Terra v OHIM (TERRAEFFEKT matt & gloss)

(Case T-118/08)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark TERRAEFFEKT matt & gloss – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 33-34, 51-53)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2008 (Case R 1467/2007‑1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign TERRAEFFEKT matt & gloss as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Actega Terra GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark TERRAEFFEKT matt & gloss for goods in Class 2 – Application No 5454517 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 General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2010 – mPAY24 v OHIM – Ultra (M PAY)

(Case T-557/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark M PAY – Earlier Community and national word marks MPAY24 – Likelihood of confusion – 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 36, 39, 42-45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2008 (Case R 221/2007‑1) relating to opposition proceedings between mPAY24 GmbH and Ultra d.o.o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Ultra d.o.o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark MPAY for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 to 38 and 42 – Application No 3587896 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: mPAY24 GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 2061656 of the word mark MPAY24 for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 38; Austrian trade mark registration No 200373 of the word mark MPAY24 for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 38 Decision of the Opposition Division: Trade mark application dismissed in its entirety Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed in 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 September 2008 (Case R 221/2007‑1) in so far as that decision dismissed the opposition brought by mPAY24 GmbH;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2010 – MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (ROI ANALYZER)

(Case T-233/08)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark ROI ANALYZER – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 27, 45-46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 (Case R 1525/2006-4) concerning the registration of the word sign ROI ANALYZER as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor Community trade mark sought: Word mark ROI ANALYZER for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 42 – Application No 4866042 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 General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2010 – 4care v OHIM – Laboratorios Diafarm (Acumed)

(Case T-575/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark Acumed – Earlier national word mark AQUAMED ACTIVE – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Similarity of the goods – 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 23, 55)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2008 (Case R 1636/2007-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Diafarm, SA and 4care AG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: 4care AG Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Acumed for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 9 – Application No 4493136 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Laboratorios Diafarm, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark AQUAMED ACTIVE (trade mark No 2506452) for goods in Class 5 and Community word mark AQUAMED ACTIVE (No 2882272) for goods in Class 5 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;