ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

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

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42, 69

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 July 2006 (Case R 1069/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Bodegas Cándido, SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>7

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Miguel Torres, SA to pay the costs.
Case T-277/06

Omnicare, Inc.

v

Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark OMNICARE — Earlier national figurative mark OMNICARE — Refusal of an application for restitutio in integrum’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 7 May 2009 II ‐ 1305

Summary of the Judgment

Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Restitutio in integrum — Scope

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 78(5), as amended by Regulation No 422/2004)

Article 78(5) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, as amended by Regulation No 422/2004, provides that ‘this Article shall not be applicable to the time-limits referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, Article 42(1) and (3) and Article 78a’.

The phrase ‘to the time-limits referred to in … Article 78a’ in Article 78(5) of Regulation No 40/94, as amended, cannot, however, be interpreted to mean that the time-limits laid down by the provisions referred to in Article 78a(2) of Regulation No 40/94 are also to be excluded from the scope of application of Article 78 of that regulation. Such time-limits are not ‘referred to’ in Article 78a of Regulation No 40/94.

Therefore, the assessment that the mandatory time-limit for filing an opposition and the time-limit for filing an appeal are put on the same footing, both excluding restitutio in integrum, is incorrect.

The reasoning that the legislature intended, in 2004, to specify that restitutio in integrum did not apply to Article 59 of Regulation No 40/94 is contradicted, first of all, by the absence of an express reference to Article 59 in the list of exceptions. If the legislature had intended to remove any doubt on that point, it could reasonably have been expected to do so expressly, specifically when it was amending Article 78(5) of Regulation No 40/94.

Next, doubt appears to be cast on the reasoning based on a successive series of exclusions by the fact that Article 42 of Regulation No 40/94 is also referred to in Article 78a of that regulation. All the references to Article 42(1) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 should logically have had to be removed from Article 78(5) of that regulation if that reasoning was correct. However, that is clearly not the case, which supports the argument that the limitations in Article 78(5) of Regulation No 40/94 do not concern Article 59 thereof.

Lastly, as Article 78(5) of Regulation No 40/94 limits the procedural rights granted by that article to the parties, that provision must be interpreted strictly.

(see paras 43, 45-49)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2009 — MABB v Commission

(Case T-24/06)

‛State aid — Digital terrestrial television — Aid granted by the German authorities to broadcasters which use the digital terrestrial television network (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Action for annulment — Not of individual concern — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market — Action brought by an authority forming an integral part of the State, not having budgetary independence and subject to State control — Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 42, 50, 52, 53)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/513/EC of 9 November 2005 on the State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 14).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – General reference to documents annexed to the application – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 30-32)

2. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Unilateral conduct – Criteria for assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‑owned subsidiaries – Subsidiary held by a holding company – Fact not sufficient to rebut the presumption (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 47-54, 58)

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Legris Industries SA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement – Undertakings that may be held responsible for participating in an overall cartel – Criteria – Commission not obliged, in its decision, to specify the infringement by undertaking and by country (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 42-45)

2. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Market share of the undertaking concerned – Discretion of the Commission (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23; Commission Notice 97/C 372/03) (see paras 54-59)

3. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Commission's margin of discretion – Raising of the general level of fines (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see paras 67, 69)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Division of the undertakings concerned into different categories – Conditions – Respect for the principle of equal treatment – Observance of the principle of proportionality (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see paras 77-78)

5. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Mitigating circumstances – Participation allegedly under constraint at meetings of undertakings having an anti-competitive purpose – No intention to restrict competition – Not relevant (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see paras 95-100)

6. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Non-imposition or reduction of the fine for cooperation of the undertaking concerned – Need for conduct which facilitated the Commission's finding of an infringement – Discretion of the Commission – Limits – Respect for the principle of equal treatment (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23; Commission Notice 96/C 207/04) (see paras 145-148)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 – Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Fardem Packaging BV to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 September 2007 – ColArt/Americas v OHIM (BASICS)

(Case T-164/06)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark BASICS – Absolute grounds for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Descriptive mark – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94

1. 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 24-25) (see paras 24-25)

2. 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(3)) (see paras 45-47, 53)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 April 2006 (Case R 788/2005-4), refusing to register the word mark BASICS as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: ColArt/Americas, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark BASICS for goods in Class 2 – Application No 2433613 Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of registration Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2008 – Sanofi‑Aventis v OHIM – GD Searle (ATURION)

(Case T-146/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark ATURION – Earlier national mark URION – Relative ground for refusal – Lack of likelihood of confusion – Lack of similarity between the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 71-73)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2006 (Case R 227/2005‑1) concerning opposition proceedings between Sanofi-Aventis SA and GD Searle LLC.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: GD Searle LLC Community trade mark sought: Word mark ATURION for goods in Class 5 – Application No 1662311 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sanofi-Aventis SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark URION for goods in Class 5 Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2007 – Portela & Companhia v OHMI – Torrens Cuadrado et Sanz (Bial)

(Case T-10/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for figurative Community trade mark Bial – Earlier national word mark BIAL – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Proof of existence of the earlier mark – Coexistence of earlier marks – Plea amending subject-matter of the proceedings – Evidence presented for the first time before the Court of First Instance – Costs incurred before the Opposition Division

1. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of registration or filing of the earlier mark (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Rule 16(2)) (see para. 34)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (see para. 76)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2005 (Case R 897/2004-1) concerning opposition proceedings between (a) Juan Torrens Cuadrado and Josep Gilbert Sanz and (b) Portela & Companhia, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Portela & Companhia, SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Bial – Application No 1400183 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Juan Torrens Cuadrado and Josep Gilbert Sanz Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark BIAL Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division confirmed in its entirety





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 14 September 2005 (Case R 897/2004-1) in so far as it orders the applicant to pay the sum of EUR 600 towards the costs incurred by Mr Torrens Cuadrado and Mr Gilbert Sanz for the opposition proceedings;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 21 May 2008 – Enercon v OHIM (E)

(Case T-329/06)

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

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 29-30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2006 (Case R 394/2006‑1) concerning the registration of the word mark E as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Enercon GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark E for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 17 – Application No 3817566 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 18 December 2008 – Torres v OHIM – Vinícola de Tomelloso (TORRE DE GAZATE)

(Case T-286/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community word mark TORRE DE GAZATE – Earlier national and international word marks TORRES and LAS TORRES – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion

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 42, 69)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 July 2006 (Case R 421/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Vinícola de Tomelloso, SCL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Vinícola de Tomelloso, SCL Community trade mark sought: Word mark TORRE DE GAZATE, for goods in Class 33 – Application No 1632017 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Miguel Torres, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: International and national word mark TORRES and international word mark LAS TORRES, for goods in Class 33 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 Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 March 2009 – Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission

(Case T-332/06)

State aid – Electricity – Preferential tariff – Decision initiating the procedure under Article 88(2) EC – Admissibility – Concept of State aid – New aid or existing aid – Advantage – Statement of reasons – Legitimate expectations – Legal certainty

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing legal effects – Decision to open a formal procedure to investigate a State measure in the course of implementation accompanied by provisional classification as new aid (Arts 87(1) EC, 88(2) and (3) EC and 230 EC) (see paras 34-36)

2. State aid – Commission decision to open a formal procedure to investigate a State measure – Provisional nature of the Commission’s assessments (Art. 88(2) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 6) (see paras 59-60)

3. State aid – Commission decision to open a formal procedure to investigate a State measure provisionally classified as new aid – Duty to state reasons (Arts 88(2) EC and 253 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 6) (see paras 78-80)

4. Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Legal certainty (see paras 102-108)

5. State aid – Existing aid and new aid – Modification affecting the substance of a measure not initially classified as aid – Measure having to be investigated in the context of the procedure applicable to new aid (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC) (see paras 128-129)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/C 214/03, notified to the Italian Republic by letter of 19 July 2006, initiating the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC, concerning State aid C 36/06 (ex NN 38/06) – Preferential electricity tariff to energy intensive industries in Italy, in so far as that decision relates to the electricity tariffs applicable to the two primary aluminium plants owned by Alcoa Trasformazioni.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 – Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery v Council

(Case T-296/06)

Dumping – Imports of lever arch mechanisms originating in China – Determination of the dumping margin – Market economy treatment – Comparison between the normal value and the export price – Application of a different method to that used during the initial investigation – Article 2(7)(a) and (10) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96

1. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Comparison between the normal value and the export price – Adjustments (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 2(10)) (see paras 42-45, 51)

2. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Determination of the normal value – Imports from countries not having a market economy as referred to inArticle 2(7)(b) of Regulation No 384/96 – Application of the rules for countries with a market economy – Application reserved for producers satisfying the conditions set out in Article 2(7)(b) of Regulation No 384/96 (Council Regulations Nos 384/96, Arts 2(1) to (6), and 7(b) and (c), and 1136/06) (see paras 47-50)

3. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Determination of the normal value – Recourse to the constructed value – Discretion of the institutions – Limits (Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 2(3), 6(8) and 16) (see paras 58-63)

4. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Normal value of products – Calculation – Difference between the provisional and final conclusions as to the choice of the calculation method – Lawfulness – Limits (Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 2(7)(a) and 9(4)) (see paras 71-75)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1136/2006 of 24 July 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of lever arch mechanisms originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2006 L 205, p. 1), in so far as it applies to the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, IML Industria Meccanica Lombarda Srl, Interkov spol. s r.o., MI.ME.CA. Srl and NIKO – kovinarsko podjetje, d.d. Železniki;
8

On 24 March 2006, the Director of ‘State Aid 1: Cohesion and Competitiveness’, the service in the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition responsible for the file (‘the Director of the Commission service responsible for the file’), sent the following letter to the applicant: ‘EUROPEAN COMMISSION Competition DG State Aid I: Cohesion and competitiveness The Director … Subject: CP 178/2004 — Alleged State aid to SVB AB … I would refer to your letters of 23 September 2004, , , and concerning the abovementioned complaint. I would like to inform you that, on the basis of the available information, the competent services of the Directorate-General for Competition have reached the conclusion that there are not sufficient reasons for continuing the investigation of your complaint. As you are aware, we received from the Member State concerned a rather extensive amount of information by letters and in meetings. All facts and circumstances have been examined closely and analysed. The complaint of your client was taken very seriously and we have done all the necessary possible to retrieve a violation of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. According to our analysis, the Stockholm Card and the hotel bookings are (with the exception of the inclusion of parking spaces in the Stockholm Card) carried out on market conditions. These activities are thus not financed from State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. As regards the use of certain parking spaces for free, arguably there is no affectation on trade, or even if there is, such aid has been included in the Stockholm Card since well before Sweden joined the European Union in 1995 and would thus constitute existing aid. Moreover, this service is since 1 January 2006 no longer included in the Stockholm Card. With respect to other activities (the provision of tourism information, etc.), it appears as if these are covered by the rules on Services of General Economic Interests (SGEI). Cross-subsidisation in favour of economic activities does not seem to occur. In case the compensation for the SGEIs would be classified as State aid, such aid would nevertheless have been provided under the same conditions since well before 1995 and would thus constitute existing aid. In summary, the extensive investigations we have undertaken on this complaint suggest that we are in the presence of existing aid, and not illegal aid, which is in any case compatible with the common market. Since there are no grounds to institute the appropriate measures procedure provided for in Article 88(1) of the Treaty, we do not propose to take any further action on this matter. Nevertheless, I would like to draw your attention on the fact that if you, in contrast to my services, are nevertheless convinced that there is illegal State aid involved, Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty has direct effect and creates therefore legal rights for citizens which national courts must guarantee. You could refer your case to those. …’