ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 February 2010 – Deutsche BKK v OHIM (Deutsche BKK)

(Case T-289/08)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark Deutsche BKK – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character and no distinctive character – No distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Article 73 and Article 74(1), first sentence, of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 and Article 76(1), first sentence, of Regulation 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 – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Exception – Distinctive character acquired through use (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b), (c) and (3) (see paras 40, 47-49, 95)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2008 (Case R 318/2008‑4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark ‘Deutsche BKK’ as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Deutsche BKK Community trade mark sought: Word mark Deutsche BKK for services in Classes 36, 41 and 44 – Application No 4724894 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 (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2010 – Nexus Europe (Ireland) v Commission

(Case T-424/08)

Arbitration clause – Fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities – Macro-Economic and Urban Trends in Europe’s Information Society (Muteis) Project – Loss caused by amending a contract in relation to the system for reimbursing costs incurred by a participant in the project

Procedure – Actions for damages (Arts 225(1) EC, 235 EC, 238 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 60-61)

Re:

APPLICATION for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of the Commission obtaining certain amendments to the contract Muteis IST-2000-30117, concluded on 31 October 2001.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2010 – Freixenet v OHIM (Shape of a frosted white bottle)

(Case T-109/08)

Community trade mark – Application for a Community trade mark representing a frosted white bottle – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – No distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Duty to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b), and (3)) (see paras 69, 79, 85, 107, 123-124)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2007 (Case R 97/2001-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign representing a frosted white bottle as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Freixenet SA Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a frosted white bottle for goods in Class 33 – Application No 32532 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 1 July 2010 – Cementir Italia v Commission

(Case T-63/08)

State aid – Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest – Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Concept of advantage – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Aid measure put into effect

1. State aid – Concept – Compensation awarded for expropriation of assets – Not included (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 57, 60, 63, 72, 74, 99, 101)

2. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Administrative procedure – Obligation on the Commission to put the parties concerned on notice to submit their observations – Right of the aid beneficiary to be sufficiently associated with the proceedings – Limits (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 161-163, 166-168)

3. EU Law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Whether applicable to administrative procedures initiated by the Commission – Examination of plans to grant aid – Scope (Art. 88(2) EC) (see para. 189)

4. State aid – Planned aid – Notification to the Commission – Scope of the obligation – Need to notify the aid measures at the draft stage (Art. 88(3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 2 and 3) (see paras 228-230, 234-236)

5. State aid – Commission decision finding aid unlawful and ordering its recovery – Aid not yet paid (Art. 88(3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras 239, 241, 250-251)

6. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Aid granted in breach of the procedural rules of Article 88 EC – Possible legitimate expectation on the part of the beneficiaries – Protection – Conditions and limits (Art. 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras 269-271, 275-276)

7. State aid – Commission decision not to raise objections to a national measure – Legitimate expectation of the beneficiary that an extension of the said measure is lawful – None (Art. 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras 283-284, 288)

Re:

Application for annulment of Decision 2008/408/EC of the Commission of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2010 – Commission v Commune de Valbonne

(Case T-238/08)

Arbitration clause – Research and training contract relating to a mutual education project between the city of Valbonne (France) and the province of Ascoli Piceno (Italy) – Application for reimbursement of advance payments

1. Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Contract subject to national law – Interpretation of the contract having regard to national law – Conditions – Insufficiency of the contractual clauses to resolve the dispute – Doubt as to the content or meaning of the contract (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 52-53)

2. Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Contract granting Community financial assistance for a mutual education project between various European municipalities – Final report of the contracting parties concerning that project having been tacitly approved by the Commission – Demand for repayment of an advance, with interest – Rejection (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 57, 77-94)

3. Procedure – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions – New plea – Concept – Applicability to disputes referred to the General Court under an arbitration clause (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2)) (see paras 67-69)

Re:

ACTION based on an arbitration clause in accordance with Article 238 EC seeking an order that the Commune de Valbonne reimburse advance payments made by the European Commission, together with late-payment interest, in connection with Contract Valaspi MM 1027 of 29 December 1997.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 October 2010 – DHL Aviation and DHL Hub Leipzig v Commission

(Case T-452/08)

State aid – Air freight – Warranties relating to the operation of DHL’s new European hub at Leipzig-Halle Airport – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Decision of the Commission adressed to a Member State and finding State aid incompatible with the common market – Action by the beneficiary of the aid – Admissibility (see para. 26)

2. State aid – Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its repayment – Obligations of the Member States – Obligation of recovery – Scope – Restoration of the prior situation (Art. 88(2) EC) (see para. 32)

3. State aid – Concept – Advantage granted to the beneficiaries of State aid – State guarantees – Nullity by reason of national law of the contractual clauses granting the State guarantee – Not relevant to the classification as aid (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 38, 40)

Re:

APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/948/EC of 23 July 2008 on measures by Germany to assist DHL and Leipzig-Halle Airport (OJ 2008 L 346, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 September 2011 – adidas v OHIM – Patrick Holding (Representation of a shoe with two stripes)

(Case T-479/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for a Community figurative mark representing a shoe with two stripes on the side – Earlier national trade mark representing a shoe with three stripes on the side – Relative ground for refusal – Failure to substantiate the earlier right – Failure to translate elements essential to substantiating the registration of the earlier trade mark – Rule 16(3), Rule 17(2) and Rule 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Failure, within the prescribed period, to produce the translation of the certificate of registration of the earlier national mark – Impact on the procedure before the Opposition Division (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 17(2)) (see paras 32-33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 August 2008 (Case R 849/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between adidas AG and Patrick Holding ApS.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011 – Kwang Yang Motor v OHIM – Honda Giken Kogyo (internal combustion engine with vent on the top)

(Case T-10/08)

Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing an internal combustion engine with the vent on the top – Earlier national design – Ground for invalidity – No individual character – Visible features of a component part of a complex product – No different overall impression – Informed user – Degree of freedom of the designer – Articles 4, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002

1. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Informed user – Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 6(1)) (see paras 23-27)

2. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Representation of an internal combustion engine with the vent on the top (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 4(2), 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 38, 43, 45)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of 8 October 2007 of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1337/2006-3), relating to invalidity proceedings for Community designs between Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha and Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 February 2012 —

EI du Pont de Nemours and Others v Commission



(Case T‑76/08)

Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for chloroprene rubber — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Price-fixing — Market‑sharing — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Joint venture — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation

1. Competition — European Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 58‑62)

2. Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Proof — Evidence adduced by the Commission — Assessment (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 105)

3. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Judicial review — Assessment of the duration of the infringement by progressive six-month thresholds — Period longer than that of the actual participation in the infringement — Lawfulness — Conditions (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02) (see paras 127‑130)

4. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Reduction in the amount of the fine for cooperation of the undertaking concerned — Conditions — Discretion of the Commission (Commission Notice 2002/C 45/03) (see paras 138‑145, 148)

Re:

APPLICATION for, first, annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38629 — Chloroprene Rubber), as amended by Commission Decision C(2008) 2974 final of 23 June 2008, in so far as they refer to EI du Pont de Nemours and Company and, second, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Appeals procedure

–

Time-limit and form of appeal

–

Lodging of a document setting out the grounds within the time-limits

–

Condition of admissibility (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 59; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 49) (see paras 19-21

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2009 (Case R 1079/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Telefónica, SA and BCP S/A.

Information relating to the case

>lt>12

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Claro, SA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature defined exclusively by Article 238 EC and the arbitration clause – Debt owing to the Commission not directly originating in contractual relations, but in the implementation of judgments delivered by a national court – General Court having no jurisdiction (Arts 238 EC and 240 EC) (see paras 32-35)

2. Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Contract granting Community financial assistance for a research, technological development and demonstration project – Non-compliance with obligations under the contract – Right of the Commission to repayment of the advance, with interest for delay (Art. 238 EC; Council Decision 94/806) (see paras 45-46, 62-63, 68-69)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION on the basis of an arbitration clause, seeking an order that Mr Gal‑Or reimburse the amount of EUR 205 611 advanced to him by the Commission in the context of contract IN/0042/97, together with default interest, and for payment of default interest on the amount of EUR 9 231.25, which is the amount of the costs incurred in an action brought by Mr Gal-Or against the Commission before the courts in the Netherlands.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Mr Benjamin Gal-Or to pay to the European Commission the principal amount owing of EUR 205 611, together with interest at the rate of:

– 2.75% from 2 March 2003;

– 2.50% from 7 March 2003;

– 2.00% from 6 June 2003;

– 2.25% from 6 December 2005;

– 2.50% from 8 March 2006;

– 2.75% from 15 June 2006;

– 3.00% from 9 August 2006;

– 3.25% from 11 October 2006;

– 3.50% from 13 December 2006;

– 3.75% from 14 March 2007;

– 4.00% from 13 June 2007;

– 4.25% from 9 July 2008;

– 3.75% from 15 October 2008;

– 3.25% from 12 November 2008;

– 2.50% from 10 December 2008;

– 2.00% from 21 January 2009;

– 1.50% from 11 March 2009;

– 1.25% from 8 April 2009;

– 1.00% from 13 May 2009;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Mr Gal‑Or 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 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, 36-37, 48

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 February 2009 (Case R 1849/2007-4), relating to registration of the word sign ‘ilink’ as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>8

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ilink Kommunikationssysteme GmbH 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

–

Three-dimensional mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 44

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2008 (Case R 185/2006-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate mouse.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Procedural provisions

–

Time-limits

–

Calculation of time-limits (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 70(2) and (4)) (see paras 29-31

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 4 September 2009 (Case R 312/2009-4) rejecting the appeal of Mr Vicente J. Jiménez Sarmiento as inadmissible in the opposition proceedings between the latter and Messrs Michel Robin, D. Falzone and M. Monseur.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Vicente J. Jiménez Sarmiento to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

3. Orders Oxygène sport international to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal against a decision by a unit of the Office – Examination by Board of Appeal – Scope – Action against a decision upholding an opposition (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 62(1)) (see paras 20-22)

2. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Examination of the application – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment – Company name, commercial name or trade name (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 44-48)

3. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds of invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier trade mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 8(1)(b) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 80-81, 93)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 February 2009 (Case R 486/2008-2) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Halder Holdings BV and Alder Capital Ltd.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Alder Capital Ltd to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Gimv Nederland BV 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 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 1045/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

Information relating to the case

>lt>10

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 1045/2008-4) 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 19, 41-42

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 August 2009 (Case R 1477/2008-2), concerning opposition proceedings between São Paulo Alpargatas, SA and Enrique Fischer.

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 17 August 2009 (Case R 1477/2008-2);

2. Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by São Paulo Alpargatas, SA;

3. Orders Enrique Fischer to pay his own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Community trade mark as an item of property

–

Assimilation of the Community trade mark to the national trade mark

–

Scope of Article 16 of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 16) (see paras 25-27

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2008 (Case R 1888/2007-2) relating to an application for registration of the transfer of a Community trade mark following an assignment.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr David Chalk to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Reformed Spirits Company Holdings Ltd 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).