ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

3 July 2003

((Community trade mark – Figurative mark containing the word mark best buy – Absolute ground for refusal – Distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)) In Case T-122/01, Best Buy Concepts Inc., established in Eden Prairie, Minnesota (United States), represented by S. Rojahn, lawyer, applicant, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by G. Schneider, acting as Agent, defendant, APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2001 (Case R 44/2000-3) concerning an application for registration of a figurative mark containing the word mark best buy as a Community trade mark,



THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Second Chamber),



composed of: N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges, Registrar: D. Christensen, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 25 February 2003,

gives the following

Judgment

Background to the dispute

1

2

3

─ Business management consultancy, including giving assistance and advice for the establishment and management of retail stores in the field of major household appliances, photographic equipment, telecommunication equipment, video equipment, audio equipment, personal computers and other home office products and entertainment software, including compact discs, pre-recorded audio and video cassettes and computer software, and related merchandise in class 35;

─ Installation and maintenance of automotive audio equipment, major household appliances, photographic equipment, video equipment, audio equipment, telecommunication equipment, personal computer and other home office products, and related merchandise in class 37;

─ Technical consultancy and advising in the establishment of retail stores in the field of major household appliances, photographic equipment, telecommunication equipment, video equipment, audio equipment, personal computers and other home office products and entertainment software, including compact discs, pre-recorded audio and video cassettes and computer software, and related merchandise in class 42.

4

5

6

7

8

─ annul the decision of the Board of Appeal;

─ order the defendant to pay the costs.

9

─ dismiss the action;

─ order the applicant to pay the costs.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

1.

2.

Forwood Pirrung Meij

H. Jung N. Forwood
Case T-67/01





JCB Service

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Competition – Article 81 EC – Distribution agreements)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), 13 January 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Competition – Administrative procedure – Obligations of the Commission – Action to be taken within a reasonable time – Infringement of principle – Consequences

(Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1); Council Regulation No 17)

2.. Competition – Administrative procedure – Obligations of the Commission – Respect for the principle of presumption of innocence – Scope



3.. Competition – Administrative procedure – Access to the file – Purpose – Observance of the rights of the defence – Infringement – Consequences

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 19(1); Commission Regulation No 99/63, Arts 3 and 7 to 9)

4.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Notification – Effects – Scope – Contracts with identical terms to that properly notified – Reinforcement or extension of restrictions or introduction of new restrictions – Fresh formal notification required

(Council Regulation No 17)

5.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Adverse effect on competition – Selective distribution system – Clauses prohibiting passive sales by authorised distributors – Unlawful

(Art. 81(1) EC)

6.. Competition – Community rules – Application by the Commission – Not influenced by the application of similar national rules by a national authority

(Arts 81 EC and 82 EC)

7.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Adverse effect on competition – Criteria for assessment – Anti-competitive object – Sufficient to establish the existence thereof

(Art. 81(1) EC)

8.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Selective distribution system – Limitation of price competition – Extent

(Art. 81(1) EC)

9.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Prohibition – Exemption – Conditions – Burden of proof – Cumulative nature of the exemption conditions

(Art. 81(3) EC)

10.. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Prohibited – Block exemption – Regulation No 123/85 – Regulation No 1475/95 – Scope – Construction site machinery – Excluded

(Commission Regulations Nos 123/85, Art. 1, and 1475/95, Art. 1)

11.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringements – Judicial review

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2))

12.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Commission's discretion – Comparisons of facts of different cases – Indicative – Comparisons in terms of turnover – Amount of fines imposed on different undertakings corresponding to different percentages of their respective turnovers – Breach of the principle of equal treatment – None

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2))

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.
Case T-243/01





Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Action for annulment – Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Game console – Classification in the Combined Nomenclature)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 30 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Customs classification regulation – Applicant directly concerned – Criteria

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 2658/87, Art. 9(1)(a), first indent)

2.. Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Classification of goods – Commission's regulatory power – Scope – Limits

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, Art. 9(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e))

3.. Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Classification of goods – Criteria – Objective characteristics and properties of the product



4.. Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Reliance on the World Customs Organisation's Harmonised System Explanatory Notes – Limits



5.. Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Video games of a kind used with a television receiver within the meaning of subheading No 9504 10 00 of the Combined Nomenclature – Game console intended to be used mainly for playing video games – Covered

(Commission Regulation No 1400/2001)

6.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Customs classification regulation – Insufficient to refer to a general rule of interpretation

(Art. 253 EC)

7.. Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Video games of a kind used with a television receiver within the meaning of subheading No 9504 10 00 of the Combined Nomenclature – Inclusion by the Commission of a game console, having regard to the function which gives it its essential character – Classification on the basis of General Interpretation Rule 3(b) of the Combined Nomenclature – Inadmissible

(Commission Regulation No 1400/2001)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.
Joined Cases T-297/01 and T-298/01





SIC ─ Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, SA

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(State aid – Public television – Complaint – Action for failure to act – Definition of a position by the Commission – Whether aid new or existing – Request for a ruling that there is no need to adjudicate – Dispute – Compliance with an annulling judgment – Commission's obligation to make an investigation – Reasonable period)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), 19 February 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Action for failure to act – Failure remedied after commencement of proceedings – Subject-matter of the action ceasing to exist – No need to adjudicate

(Arts 226 EC, 232 EC and 233 EC)

2.. Action for failure to act – Scope ratione materiae – Dispute relating to the extent of the obligation to give effect to an annulling judgment – Included

(Arts 232 EC and 233 EC)

3.. Action for failure to act – Institution must be called on to act – Definition of position within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 232 EC – Concept

(Arts 230 EC and 232, second para., EC)

1.

2.

3.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature –Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Pleas in law not set out in the application – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1), 130(1), and 132(1))

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Mark ‘bestpartner’

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

Summary

1. Under Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, which is applicable in intellectual property matters by virtue of Article 130(1) and Article 132(1) of those rules, although specific points in the body of the application can be supported and completed by references to specific passages in the documents attached, a general reference to other documents cannot compensate for the lack of essential information in the application itself which, under the aforementioned provisions, must be contained in the application itself. Accordingly, an application, in so far as it refers to documents filed by the applicant before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), is inadmissible because the general reference contained therein is not linked to a plea developed in the application.

(see para. 16)

2. With regard to the English-speaking public in the Community, the term ‘bestpartner’, for which registration is sought for insurance, financial and Internet data-processing services in Classes 36, 38 and 42 of the Nice Agreement, is devoid of the minimum degree of distinctive character required by Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. The terms ‘best’ and ‘partner’ are generic words which simply denote the quality of services supplied by an undertaking to its clients and the fact of coupling the two terms together without any graphic or semantic modification does not imbue them with any additional characteristic such as to render the sign, taken as a whole, capable for the relevant public of distinguishing the applicant’s services from those of other undertakings.

(see paras 24, 26-27)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Own resources of the European Communities – Repayment or remission of import or export duties – Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 – Concept of ‘import and export duty’ – Amount due on the ground that C sugar was not exported – Not included – Rejection of an application for remission – Breach of Article 13, of the principles of equality or legal certainty or a supposed principle of equity – None

(Council Regulations Nos 1430/79, Arts 1, 13 and 14, and 1785/81, Art. 26; Commission Regulation No 2670/81, Art. 3)

Summary

The charge imposed on a sugar producer under Article 26 of Regulation No 1785/81 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector and Article 3 of Regulation No 2670/81 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota by reason of the non-disposal of certain quantities of C sugar outside the Community does not constitute an import or export duty for the purposes of Articles 13 and 14 of Regulation No 1430/79 on the repayment or remission of import or export duties, which allow for such a repayment or remission in the special situations which result from circumstances in which no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to the person concerned. The charge does not constitute a customs duty or a charge having equivalent effect or an agricultural charge within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 1430/79. Nor, having regard to its objectives and the basis of its calculation, can it be considered as being converted into an import duty, since, unlike such a duty, it is a penalty which is primarily deterrent in nature and is intended to ensure that the prohibition on disposing of C sugar on the internal market is complied with.

Accordingly, a Commission decision rejecting the application for remission as inadmissible under Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 does not infringe those provisions. Furthermore, such a decision does not infringe the principles of equality and legal certainty and a supposed principle of equity.

(see paras 38, 44-45, 47, 58, 61-62)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality – Assessment based solely on examination of the mark itself in relation to the goods and services covered – Facts relating to the conduct of the proprietor of the trade mark – Not relevant

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(f))

Summary

It is the Community trade mark itself, namely the sign in relation to the goods or services as they appear upon registration of the trade mark, which is to be assessed in order to determine whether that mark is contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality within the meaning of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation No 40/94, likely to lead to a declaration of invalidity pursuant to Article 51(1) of that regulation. An overall reading of the various subparagraphs of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 40/94 shows that they refer to the intrinsic qualities of the mark applied for and not to circumstances relating to the conduct of the person holding the trade mark.

It follows that the fact that the proprietor of a Community trade mark is prohibited, in a Member State, from offering the services covered by the mark and from advertising them cannot in any way be considered as relating to the intrinsic qualities of that trade mark within the meaning of the abovementioned interpretation. Consequently, that fact cannot have the effect of rendering the trade mark itself contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality.

(see paras 27-29)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link with the conduct of a Community institution or body – Failure to meet one of the conditions – Dismissal of an action for damages in its entirety

(Art. 188, second para., EA)

Summary

The Community’s non-contractual liability under the second paragraph of Article 188 EA and the exercise of the right to compensation for damage suffered are subject to a set of conditions as regards the unlawfulness of the conduct alleged against the Community institution, the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct and the damage complained of. In that respect, only measures or conduct attributable to a Community institution or body may give rise to liability on the part of the Community. If any one of those conditions is not satisfied, the action must be dismissed in its entirety and it is unnecessary to consider the other conditions.

(see paras 41-43)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

25 March 2004

Case T-238/02

José Barbosa Gonçalves

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Officials – Action – Application for compensation brought without recourse to the pre-litigation procedure prescribed by the Staff Regulations – Admissibility)

Full text in Portuguese II - 0000

Application: for compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the failure to admit him to the written tests in competition COM/A/6/01.

Held: The application is dismissed as inadmissible. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials – Appeals – Action for compensation introduced without a prior administrative procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations – Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
Case T-313/02

David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Competition – Freedom to provide services – Anti-doping rules adopted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) – Purely sporting rules)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 30 September 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1. Community law – Scope – Sport – Limitation to economic activities

(Art. 2 EC)

2. Freedom of movement of persons and services – Workers – Competition – Treaty provisions – Scope – Sporting activities – Limits – Anti-doping rules – Not included

(Arts 39 EC, 49 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC)

1. Having regard to the objectives of the Community, sport is subject to Community law only in so far as it constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 2 EC.

(see para. 37)

2. Where a sporting activity takes the form of paid employment or a provision of remunerated service, it falls within the scope of Article 39 EC et seq. or of Article 49 EC et seq. Therefore, the prohibitions laid down by those provisions of the Treaty apply to the rules adopted in the field of sport which concern the economic aspect which sporting activity can present. On the other hand, those prohibitions do not affect purely sporting rules, that is to say rules concerning questions of purely sporting interest and, as such, having nothing to do with economic activity. That restriction on the scope of the above provisions of the Treaty must however remain limited to its proper objective.

Those principles, extracted as regards the application to sporting regulations of the Treaty provisions in respect of the freedom of movement of persons and services, are equally valid as regards the Treaty provisions relating to competition. The fact that purely sporting rules may have nothing to do with economic activity, with the result that they do not fall within the scope of Articles 39 EC and 49 EC, means, also, that they have nothing to do with the economic relationships of competition, with the result that they also do not fall within the scope of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC.

Conversely, rules which, although adopted in the field of sport, are not purely sporting but concern the economic activity which sport may represent fall within the scope of the provisions both of Articles 39 EC and 49 EC and of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC and are capable, in an appropriate case, of constituting an infringement of the liberties guaranteed by those provisions.

Since the prohibition of doping is based on purely sporting considerations and therefore has nothing to do with any economic consideration, the rules to combat doping laid down by sports organisations do not come within the scope of the Treaty provisions on the economic freedoms and, in particular, of Articles 49 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC.

(see paras 39-42, 47)
Keywords

Summary



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 – Figurative mark monBeBé and word mark bebe

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

Summary

There is, for the average German consumer, a likelihood of confusion between the figurative sign composed of the word element ‘monBeBé’, with alternating upper- and lower-case letters, all within a black oval frame, for which registration as a Community trade mark is sought for babies’ napkins of absorbent cotton falling within Class 5 of the Nice Agreement, and the word marks bebe registered earlier in Germany and as an international trade mark, having effect, in particular, in Italy, Austria and the Benelux countries for skin and body care preparations and cosmetic preparations, falling within Class 3 of that agreement, given the similarity of the goods in question, the visual and conceptual similarity and some phonetic similarity between the opposing signs and the high degree of acquired distinctiveness of the earlier national trade mark.

(see paras 69, 86)
Keywords

Summary



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 – Word marks DigiFilm and DigiFilmMaker

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c))

Summary

The word marks DigiFilm and DigiFilmMaker in respect of which registration was sought, as regards both signs, for ‘Storage media, data carriers, in particular optical data carriers, in particular CD-ROMs, including all the aforesaid goods with photographs stored thereon; photographic and cinematographic apparatus and instruments (included in class 9); apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound and/or images; data-processing apparatus; computers; computer software’ and ‘Recording of data carriers, in particular with digital data, in particular image data, creating photographs; printing of photographs; operating an online print service for photographs’ in Classes 9 and 42 respectively of the Nice Agreement and, as regards the sign DigiFilmMaker also in respect of ‘apparatus and automatic machines for recording data carriers, in particular apparatus for the transfer of digital data (in particular image data) onto data carriers (in particular CD-ROMs)’ in Class 9 of that agreement, are, from the point of view of the average, normally well-informed and reasonably attentive English-speaking consumer, descriptive of the goods and services referred to in the Community trade mark application for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 since there is, for the relevant public, a direct and specific relationship between the signs and the goods and services at issue.

First, as regards the elements of which the marks applied for are composed, ‘digi’ is an abbreviation of the word ‘digital’, which is commonly used, notably in the English language, to describe the digital technique, ‘film’ is an English word designating in this language, and in numerous others, both the roll and the finished work or its making and, lastly, the English word ‘maker’, associated like in this case with ‘film’, denotes the film-maker, but also, in the alternative, the apparatus allowing films to be made. Secondly, as regards the marks applied for in their entirety, the juxtapositions of those elements are not more than the sum of their parts. Neither do they constitute neologisms with their own meaning which are therefore independent of their components.

(see paras 28-30, 33, 38)