ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1

Article 65 CS provides: ‘1. All agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices tending directly or indirectly to prevent, restrict or distort normal competition within the common market shall be prohibited, and in particular those tending: (a) to fix or determine prices; (b) to restrict or control production, technical development or investment; (c) to share markets, products, customers or sources of supply. 2. However, the Commission shall authorise specialisation agreements or joint buying or joint selling agreements in respect of particular products, if [certain requirements are met …] 3. The Commission may, as provided in Article 47, obtain any information needed for the application of this Article, either by making a special request to the parties concerned or by means of regulations stating the kinds of agreement, decision or practice which must be communicated to it. 4. Any agreement or decision prohibited by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be automatically void and may not be relied upon before any court or tribunal in the Member States. The Commission shall have sole jurisdiction, subject to the right to bring actions before the Court, to rule whether any such agreement or decision is compatible with this Article. 5. On any undertaking which has entered into an agreement which is automatically void, or has enforced or attempted to enforce, by arbitration, penalty, boycott or any other means, an agreement or decision which is automatically void or an agreement for which authorisation has been refused or revoked, or has obtained an authorisation by means of information which it knew to be false or misleading, or has engaged in practices prohibited by paragraph 1 of this Article, the Commission may impose fines or periodic penalty payments not exceeding twice the turnover on the products which were the subject of the agreement, decision or practice prohibited by this Article; if, however, the purpose of the agreement, decision or practice is to restrict production, technical development or investment, this maximum may be raised to 10% of the annual turnover of the undertakings in question in the case of fines, and 20% of the daily turnover in the case of periodic penalty payments.’
3

Article 149(3) of the version of the Implementing Rules applicable to the facts of the case provides: ‘In the case of contracts awarded by the Community institutions on their own account, under Article 105 of the Financial Regulation, the contracting authority shall inform all unsuccessful tenderers or candidates, simultaneously and individually, as soon as possible after the award decision and within the following week at the latest, by mail and fax or e-mail, that their application or tender has not been accepted; specifying in each case the reasons why the tender or application has not been accepted. The contracting authority shall, at the same time as the unsuccessful candidates or tenderers are informed that their tenders or applications have not been accepted, inform the successful tenderer of the award decision, specifying that the decision notified does not constitute a commitment on the part of the contracting authority. Unsuccessful tenderers or candidates may request additional information about the reasons for their rejection in writing by mail, fax or e-mail, and all tenderers who have put in an admissible tender may obtain information about the characteristics and relative merits of the tender accepted and the name of the successful tenderer, without prejudice to the second subparagraph of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation. The contracting authority shall reply within no more than fifteen calendar days from receipt of the request. …’
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 – Fratex Indústria e Comércio v OHIM – USA Track & Field (TRACK & FIELD USA)

(Case T-103/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for figurative Community mark TRACK & FIELD USA – Earlier national figurative mark TRACK & FIELD – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Lack of similarity between the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 68-74)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of 18 January 2007 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case No R 1061/2005-4)) concerning opposition proceedings between Fratex Indústria e Comércio, Ltda and USA Track & Field, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: USA Track & Field, Inc Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark USA TRACK & FIELD – Application No 1680883 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Fratex Indústria e Comércio, Ltda Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative national mark TRACK & FIELD Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal by USA Track & Field, Inc allowed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 – Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etaireia v Council and Commission

(Case T-162/07)

Non‑contractual liability – Customs union – Proof of the Community nature of products of sea-fishing – Submission of certain documents as proof not possible – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals – Liability of the Community in the absence of unlawful conduct by its bodies

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 45-47)

2. Non-contractual liability – Article 288, second para., EC – Scope (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 74-77)

Re:

ACTION for damages to compensate for the damage alleged to have been suffered by the applicant as a result of the fact that the Council and the Commission did not adopt provisions enabling the customs authorities of a Member State to accept as proof of the Community nature of products of sea-fishing documents other than the T2M form provided for in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 December 2009 – Cofac v Commission

(Case T-158/07)

ESF – Reduction in financial assistance – Training schemes – Rights of the defence – Right to be heard

Social policy – European Social Fund – Financial assistance for vocational training – Decision to reduce assistance initially granted – Defence rights of beneficiaries – Scope (see paras 35-37, 39, 54)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision D(2005) 13066 of 3 June 2005 reducing the amount of the financial assistance granted to the applicant by the European Social Fund (ESF) by Decision No C(88) 0831 of 29 April 1988 for training schemes (file No 880707 P1).

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Single Judge) of 6 May 2010 – Comune di Napoli v Commission

(Case T-388/07)

ERDF – Reduction in assistance – Urban pilot project for the development of a telematic network for the city of Naples – Concept of irregularity – Eligible expenses

1. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Decision to reduce financial aid by reason of irregularities – Irregularity – Concept (Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24(2) and (3)) (see paras 46-48, 54-58, 161)

2. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Application for modifications of contractual conditions submitted by a body which benefited from aid – Duty of the Commission to reply within a reasonable time – Criteria for assessment (see paras 88-92)

3. Economic and social cohesion – European Regional Development Fund – Decision to reduce financial assistance – Amount of reduction determined without taking account of implementation of the project or of the absence of fraud or fraudulent intentions – Breach of principle of proportionality – None (Council Regulations No 4253/88, Art. 24, and No 2988/95, Art. 2) (see paras 146-148, 152-154)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of Community law – None – Action devoid of legal foundation (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 174-178)

5. Non-contractual liability – Liability for a lawful act – Principle not recognised in Community law – Pleas designed to establish abnormal and special loss and a causal link between that loss and the said act – Inoperative pleas (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 184-188)

Re:

First, annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3893 of 8 August 2007, concerning a reduction in the assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88, amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93, to the city of Naples (Italy) by Commission Decision PH/1997/2761, approving the granting of ERDF assistance in the context of urban pilot project No 97.05.29.002 and, secondly, an application for damages seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the contested decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 February 2010 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-340/07)

Arbitration clause – ‘eContent’ programme – Contract relating to a project designed to ensure maximum effectiveness of the programme and the widest possible participation of target groups – Non-performance of the contract – Termination of the contract

1. Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Jurisdiction of the Court defined exclusively by Article 238 EC and the arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 76-77)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law not set out in the application (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 120-123)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Violation of the principles of good administration and transparency – Raised in the context of purely contractual relations – Inadmissible save where contractual terms or the law applicable to the contract infringed (see para. 124)

4. Officials – Rights and obligations – Duty of independence and integrity – Risk of conflict of interests where there are professional relations between an official having to rule on a case and a third party involved in it – None (Staff Regulations, Art. 11 a) (see paras 130-134)

Re:

ACTION brought under Articles 235 EC, 238 EC and 288 EC for an order that the Commission make good damage suffered as a result of its failure to comply with contractual obligations in the context of the performance of the EDC-53007 EEBO/27873 contract relating to the project entitled ‘e-Content Exposure and Business Opportunities’.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision SG (2007) D/200972 of 28 February 2007 not to grant to the vessel ‘Niclas’ the specialised vessels exemption, pursuant to Article 4(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March 1999 on a Community-fleet capacity policy to promote inland waterway transport (OJ 1999 L 90, p. 1).
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 31 March 2011 – Greece v Commission

(Case T-214/07)

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Arable crops – Specific measures for certain agricultural products in favour of the smaller Aegean islands

1. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Limitation of refusal of financing – 24-month period – Point from which time starts to run – Communication by the Commission of the results of checks (Council Regulations Nos 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c) and 1258/1999, Art. 7(4), fifth para.) (see para. 39)

2. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Challenge by the Member State concerned – Burden of proof – Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (Council Regulations Nos 729/70 and 1258/1999) (see paras 51, 53-55)

3. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Regulation prescribing specific control measures – No discretion of Member States – Non-implementation – Justification – Other system of control more efficient – Not permissible (see para. 56)

4. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Commission decision withdrawing Community financial assistance – No power to substitute another decision or vary the disputed decision – Pleas for reduction of the amount to be repaid – Inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 136)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/243/EC of 18 April 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2007 L 106, p. 55).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-243/07)

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Measures to be adopted as a result of the accession of new Member States — 2003 Act of Accession — Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar, and the financial consequences of their elimination — Objective pursued by a provision of primary law — Decision 2007/361/EC

1. Accession of new Member States to the Communities — 2003 Act of Accession — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures concerning trade in agricultural products — Assessment of excess stocks — Attenuation of the obligation to eliminate excess stocks (2003 Act of Accession, Annex IV, Section 4(2); Commission Regulation No 1972/2003) (see para. 30)

2. Accession of new Member States to the Communities — 2003 Act of Accession — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures concerning trade in agricultural products — Elimination by new Member States of their excess stocks — Concept — Commission’s margin of discretion (2003 Act of Accession, Annex IV, Section 4(2)) (see paras 40-48)

3. Accession of new Member States to the Communities — 2003 Act of Accession — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures concerning trade in agricultural products — Duty of new Member States to eliminate their excess stocks — Commission decision imposing a payment obligation not designed to cover the costs of eliminating surpluses from the internal market — Incompatibility with Annex IV, Section 4(2) of the Act of Accession — Annulment (2003 Act of Accession, Annex IV, Section 4(2)) (see paras 49-52, 74-76, 78-79)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2007 L 138, p. 14), in so far as it relates to the Republic of Poland.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, in so far as it relates to the Republic of Poland;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Poland;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 8 July 2009 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Laboratorios Alcala Farma (oli)

(Case T-240/08)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative Community mark oli — Earlier Community word marks OLAY — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)’

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 45, 54)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2008 (Case R 1481/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between The Procter & Gamble Company and Laboratorios Alcala Farma, SL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Laboratorios Alcala Farma, SL Community trade mark sought: The figurative mark oli for goods in Classes 3 and 5 — Application No 4059176 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The Procter & Gamble Company Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Community trade marks OLAY for goods in Classes 3 and 5 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 (Eighth Chamber) of 13 May 2009 — Schuhpark Fascies v OHIM — Leder & Schuh (jello SCHUHPARK)

(Case T-183/08)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative and word mark jello SCHUHPARK — Earlier national word mark Schuhpark — Relative ground for refusal — Proof of use of earlier mark — Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94’

Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 20-24)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2008 (Case R 1560/2006-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Schuhpark Fascies GmbH and Leder & Schuh AG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Leder & Schuh AG Community trade mark sought: Word and figurative mark jello SCHUHPARK for goods in Classes 1, 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24 to 26 and 28 — Application No 1269372 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Schuhpark Fascies GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark Schuhpark for goods in Class 25 and, in that respect, the opposition was directed against registration in Classes 18, 21, 25 and 26 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part and application for registration rejected in part Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the appealed decision and rejection of the opposition

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

–

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

)

Subject of the case

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

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1 . Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal before the Community judicature – Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to the proceedings

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(4))

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

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

Summary

1. Article 63(4) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark provides that an action against a decision of the Board of Appeal is ‘open to any party to proceedings before the Board of Appeal adversely affected by its decision’.

As regards opposition proceedings, the new owners of an earlier trade mark may, in that context, bring an action before the Court and should be accepted as a party to the proceedings once they have proven ownership of the right invoked before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

Where the new holder of the earlier trade mark has submitted proof of transfer of the mark and the Office has recorded that transfer following the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, he therefore becomes a party to the proceedings before the Office.

(see paras 30-32, 34)

2. There is no likelihood of confusion for the average German consumer within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark between the figurative sign Thai Silk, in respect of which registration as Community trade mark was sought for ‘silk’ and ‘clothing, made of silk’ in Classes 24 and 25 of the Nice Agreement, and the earlier figurative trade mark representing a winged creature, which was previously registered in Germany for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 of that agreement.

The visual and aural differences between the marks at issue are such as to neutralise the weak conceptual similarity. Faced with the two signs at issue, it is completely impossible that the relevant public could establish a link between them giving rise to a likelihood of confusion and causing it to believe that the goods concerned came from the same undertaking or from economically-linked undertakings. Moreover, even if clothing producers do sometimes create a number of lines of goods, it is wholly improbable that the relevant public, faced with the two signs at issue, could believe that they were variants of the same mark or sub‑brands of the same manufacturer.

(see paras 52, 73)
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 24, 43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2008 (Case R 1590/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between 2nine Ltd and Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>8

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders 2nine Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).