ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Review of legality — Criteria — Account taken only of the factual and legal elements existing at the date on which the contested measure was adopted (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 70)

2. 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 83, 130)

3. 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 84-88)

4. 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 reality 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 89-93, 99, 153)

5. 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. 115)

6. 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. 129)

7. Actions for annulment — Judicial review — Limits on jurisdiction (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 175)

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 Eesti Autorite Ühing;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 1 July 2009 – Perfetti Van Melle v OHIM – Cloetta Fazer (CENTER SHOCK)

(Case T-16/08)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark CENTER SHOCK – Earlier national word marks CENTER – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds of invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 8(1)(b) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 41-44, 49-50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 November 2007 (Case R 149/2006-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Cloetta Fazer AB and Perfetti Van Melle SpA.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘CENTER SHOCK’ for goods in Class 30 – Community trade mark No 973065 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Perfetti Van Melle SpA Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Cloetta Fazer AB Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The national word marks ‘CENTER’ and ‘CLOETTA CENTER’ for goods in, inter alia, Class 30 Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Perfetti Van Melle SpA to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2009 – Trubion Pharmaceuticals v OHIM – Merck (TRUBION)

(Case T-412/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark TRUBION – Earlier Community figurative mark TriBion Harmonis – 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 28, 56-58)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 July 2008 (Case R 1605/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Merck KGaA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark TRUBION for goods and services in Classes 5 and 42 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Merck KGaA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 72884 of the word mark BION registered for various goods; Community trade mark registration No 3282936 of the figurative mark TriBion Harmonis registered for various goods Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in respect of the goods in Class 5 and dismissed in respect of the remaining services in Class 42 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 March 2010 – 2nine v OHIM – Pacific Sunwear of California (nollie)

(Case T-364/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark nollie – Earlier national and international word marks NOLI – Relative ground for refusal – No similarity between the goods – 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) – Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation 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 24, 43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2008 (Case R 1591/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between 2nine Ltd and Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark nollie for goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 11, 14, 18, 20, 25 and 26 – application No 4601621 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: 2nine Ltd Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 839740 of the word mark NOLI for goods in Classes 3, 18, 24 and 25; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2361525 of the word mark NOLI for goods in Classes 3, 18, 24 and 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld; trade mark application dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the contested decision





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2010 – Ravensburger v OHIM – Educa Borras (EDUCA Memory game)

(Case T-243/08)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community figurative mark EDUCA Memory game – Earlier national and international word marks MEMORY – Relative ground for refusal – Lack of similarity between the signs – Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 74 and 75 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 76 and 77 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2008 (Case R 597/2007‑2) concerning invalidity proceedings between Ravensburger AG and Educa Borras SA.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: Figurative mark EDUCA Memory game for goods in Class 28 – Community trade mark registration No 495036 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Educa Borras, SA Party seeking cancellation of the Community trade mark: Ravensburger AG Trade mark of the party seeking cancellation: International word trade mark MEMORY, registration No 393512; Benelux word trade mark MEMORY, registration No 38328; German word trade mark MEMORY, registration No 964625 Decision of the Cancellation Division: Community trade mark invalid Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Cancellation Division annulled





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 July 2010 – Trautwein v OHIM (Representation of a horse)

(Case T-386/08)

Community trade mark – Application for a Community figurative mark representing a horse – 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 30, 34-36, 38-40, 42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of 7 July 2008 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1730/2007-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing a horse.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein GbR, Research and Development Community trade mark sought: Representation of a horse for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 31 – Application No 4829354 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 (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 – Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein v OHIM (Hunter)

(Case T-505/08)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark Hunter – 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) – Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application)

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 35, 40, 52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2008, as corrected on 5 February 2009 (Case R 1733/2007-1), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign Hunter.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein GbR, Research and Development Community trade mark sought: Word mark Hunter for goods in Classes 18 to 25 – Application No 4829347 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 (First Chamber) of 17 December 2010 – Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon)

(Case T-336/08)

Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark – Shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – No distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Exception – Acquisition of distinctive character through use – Three-dimensional mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3)) (see paras 59, 67-71)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2008 (Case R 1332/2005-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional mark, representing an Easter bunny made of chocolate, for goods in Class 30 – Application No 3844446 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 (Second Chamber) of 20 October 2011 – Eridania Sadam v Commission

(Case T-579/08)

State aid – Measures by the Italian authorities aimed at compensating for the losses suffered by the sugar refinery Villasor (Italy) following a drought – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market – Duty to state reasons – Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector

1. State aid – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – Decision concerning aid aimed at compensating for losses suffered by a sugar refinery following a fall in production of beet sugar due to a drought – Effect on trade between Member States – Adverse effect on competition – Duty to state reasons – Scope (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 29-32)

2. State aid – Effect on trade between Member States – Adverse effect on competition – Aid of little importance in a sector with lively competition – Sugar producing market (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 37-39)

3. Actions for annulment – Action brought against a Commission decision declaring State aid incompatible with the common market – Plea claiming error of legal basis having no effect on the legality of the contested decision – Invalid plea in law (see paras 49-53)

4. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Economic disadvantages caused directly by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences – Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector – Aid aimed at compensating for losses in agricultural production or means of agricultural production – Scope (Art. 87(2)(b) EC; Commission Notice 2000/C 28/02) (see paras 58, 61-71)

5. State aid – Administrative procedure – Obligation on the Commission to put the parties concerned on notice to submit their observations – Exlusion of the interested parties from the benefit of defence rights (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 79-81)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/704/EC of 16 July 2008 relating to State aid C 29/2004 (ex N 328/2003) that Italy is considering granting to the Villasor sugar refinery owned by Sadam ISZ (OJ 2009 L 244, p. 10).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks 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 32, 37, 44

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2008 (Case R 70/2006‑4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign EURO AUTOMATIC CASH as a Community trade mark.

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 18 November 2008 (Case R 70/2006-4);

2. Orders OHIM to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the parties before the Court;

3. Orders Européenne de traitement de l'information (Euro-Information) to pay one fifth of the costs incurred by the parties before the Court;

4. Orders OHIM to pay the essential costs incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 30-31, 44-45

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2008 (Case R 1063/2008-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign packaging as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>22

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Micro Shaping Ltd 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

–

Word mark NATURALLY ACTIVE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para 24, 26-28, 32-37

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 May 2009 (Case R 27/2009-2) concerning registration of the word sign NATURALLY ACTIVE as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>12

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 11 May 2009 (Case R 27/2009‑2) in so far as it refused registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign NATURALLY ACTIVE for wash bags, cosmetic bags and cases, beach bags, handbags, shoulder bags, draw string bags, purses, wallets, vanity cases, make-up bags, canvas bags, and cases for mirrors in Class 18 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Liz Earle Beauty Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of OHIM’s costs. OHIM is ordered to bear one third of its costs.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

27 October 2010

Case T-65/09 P

Enzo Reali

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Contract staff — Recruitment — Classification in grade — Experience — Qualifications — Equivalence)

Appeal: against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) in Case F-136/06 Reali v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-451 and II-A-1-2495, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Enzo Reali is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal.

Summary

1. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Lack of competence of the institution which adopted the contested measure — To be considered of the Court’s own motion

(Art. 263 TFEU)

2. Officials — Members of the contract staff — Classification

1. Pleas contesting the formal legality of an act or pleas of inadmissibility may be raised by the Court of its own motion, so that a finding which touches on the competence of the institution which adopted the act must be raised by the Court of its own motion even though none of the parties has asked it to do so.

(see para. 43)

See: 19/58 Germany v High Authority [1960] ECR 225, 233; C-210/98 P Salzgitter v Commission [2000] ECR I-5843, paragraph 56

2. The principle of non-discrimination means that comparable situations should not be treated differently and that different situations should not be treated in the same way, unless there are objective grounds for doing so.

In that regard, the situation of an applicant who has obtained a ‘Laurea’ diploma after four years of study, before the introduction of a new system of diplomas following the Bologna Declaration, notwithstanding the grant of the title of ‘Dottore Magistrale’ to holders of a ‘Laurea’, in the same manner as to holders of a ‘Master’s’ degree obtained after the introduction of that system, and the situation of a person who has obtained such a ‘Master’s’ degree cannot be considered to be the same. It cannot therefore be legitimately held that, for the purposes of his classification as a member of the contract staff, that applicant had obtained two diplomas, a ‘Bachelor’s’ degree and a ‘Master’s’ degree, since the ‘Master’s’ degree is to be regarded as one year of professional experience.

(see paras 62, 64)

See: T-373/94 Werners v Council and Commission [2006] ECR II-4631, para. 98 and the case-law cited therein
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 25-26, 42

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 June 2009 (Case R 1500/2008-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Topcom Europe NV and Häfele GmbH & Co. KG.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Häfele GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Topcom Europe NV for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community design

–

Ground for invalidity

–

No individual character

–

Comparison between the overall impression produced by the contested design and that produced by the previous design (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 21-26

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2009 (Case R 1323/2008-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel, on the one hand, and José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA, on the other.

Information relating to the case

>lt>18

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 October 2009 (Case R 1323/2008‑3);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA, and orders Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel to bear their own costs.