ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding an infringement – Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission – Extent of the burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 25-26)

2. Competition – Administrative procedure – Time-limit with regard to proceedings – Consequences (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 25) (see para. 42)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part and for amendment 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).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls 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) in so far as it concerns Stempher BV and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher CV;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.
In an action for annulment under Article 230 EC against a Commission decision in a competition matter, although the Commission cannot, in support of the contested decision, produce new inculpatory evidence not contained in the decision, it is nevertheless entitled to respond to the applicant’s arguments where the applicant seeks to establish, on the basis of documents other than those produced by it to the Court, that the Commission’s assertion is incorrect in fact. The author of a contested decision is entitled to provide explanations at the stage of the judicial proceedings in order to supplement a statement of reasons which is already adequate in itself, since those explanations may serve a useful purpose in relation to review by the EU judicature of the adequacy of the grounds of the decision, since they enable the institution to explain the reasons underlying its decision.

A company regarded as forming a single undertaking with its subsidiary within the meaning of Article 81 EC cannot argue that the General Court’s reduction of the fine imposed on its subsidiary has the consequence that the fine imposed jointly and severally on it as the parent company should also be reduced, where that decision of the General Court results from the fact that the Commission infringed the defence rights of the subsidiary by failing to inform it, in the statement of objections, that it held it liable for the infringement committed by a second subsidiary in its capacity as the parent company of the latter, and not in its capacity as legal successor.

Since the General Court did not clear that second subsidiary of infringing conduct and, and the Commission presumed the exercise of decisive influence by the parent company of the group over that second subsidiary on the basis of indirect holding of the whole of its capital, the Commission was able to attribute the infringing conduct of the second subsidiary to the parent company of the group and impose joint and several liability for the fine upon it. The Commission has a discretion in deciding which are the entities within an undertaking which it regards as responsible for an infringement. The parent company of the group may therefore be held solely liable for the conduct of its second subsidiary.

(see paras 72-75)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 – Glaverbel v OHIM (Texture of a glass surface)

(Case T-141/06)

Community trade mark – Application for a Community figurative mark representing the texture of a glass surface – Absolute ground for refusal – Absence of evidence of distinctive character acquired through use

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the Community judicature (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 135(4)) (see para. 14)

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(1)(b), (2) and (3)) (see paras 19-23, 32-40)

3. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Absence of distinctive character – Exception – Acquisition of distinctive character through use (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3)) (see paras 35-38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2006 (Case R 0986/2004-4), relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative mark representing the texture of a glass surface.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Glaverbel SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark consisting of a motif applied to the surface of goods of Classes 19 and 21 – Application No 3183068 Decision of the Examiner: Application for a community trade mark for all goods is dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 6 May 2008 – Redcats v OHIM – Revert & Cía (REVERIE)

(Case T-246/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark REVERIE – Earlier Community figurative mark Revert – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – 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 44, 47-48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2006 (Case R 171/2005-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Manuel Revert & Cía, SA, and Redcats SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Redcats SA Community trade mark sought: Word mark REVERIE for goods in Classes 16, 20 and 24 – Application No 2146447 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Manuel Revert & Cía, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark Revert for goods and services in Classes 24, 25 and 39 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in relation to the disputed goods in Class 24 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 2008 – Demp v OHIM – BAU HOW (BAU HOW)

(Case T-106/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark BAU HOW – Earlier figurative marks BAUHAUS – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(a) and (b), and Article 73 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 43, 47-48)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2006 (Case R 92/2004-4) on opposition proceedings between Demp BV and BAU HOW GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: BAU HOW GmbH Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark BAU HOW for goods and services in Classes 7, 8, 11, 19, 20, 36, 37 and 40 – Application No 1740133 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Demp BV Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark BAUHAUS as Benelux trade mark No 570351 and International mark No 646757 for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 6 to 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19 to 21, 25, 27, 31 and 40 and the application for registration of Irish mark No 2000/03158 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 (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 – Promat v OHIM – Puertas Proma (PROMAT)

(Case T-243/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community figurative mark PROMAT – Earlier Community figurative mark PROMA – Partial refusal to register – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – 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 para. 54)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2006 (Case R 1059/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Puertas Proma SAL and Promat GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Promat GmbH Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark PROMAT relating to goods and services in Classes 1, 3, 6 to 12, 14, 16, 17, 20 to 22, 25 and 37 – Application No 932202 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Puertas Proma, SAL Mark or sign cited in opposition: In particular, figurative mark PROMA designating goods and services in Classes 6, 20 and 39 (Community mark No 239384) Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2008 – Cassegrain v OHIM (Shape of a bag)

(Case T-73/06)

Community trade mark – Application for a Community figurative mark – Shape of a bag – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 27-28)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 December 2005 (Case R 687/2005-2) concerning the registration of the figurative sign Shape of a bag as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Jean Cassegrain SAS Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark representing a bag for goods in Class 18 – Application No 003598571 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 (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2008 – Italy v Commission

(Case T-154/06)

European Social Fund (ESF) – Reduction of financial assistance – Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 – Appropriate examination of the case by the Commission – Actions for annulment

Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Detailed monitoring by the national authorities of compliance with the financial obligations of the aid recipients – Scope – Declaration as to the regularity of expenses drawn up by a service independent of the monitoring service – Declaration constituting a central and reliable piece of evidence – Duty on the Community to carry out a fresh inquiry – None (Council Regulation No 4253/88, Arts 23 and 24; Commission Regulation No 2064/97, Art. (8)) (see paras 38-43, 50-52, 66-69, 77-78, 91)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1171 of 23 March 2006, reducing financial aid granted by the European Social Fund (ESF) for an operational programme in the Sicily Region, forming part of the Community support framework for Community structural interventions under Objective No 1 in Italy (period from 1994 to 1999).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2008 – Giorgio Beverly Hills v OHIM – WHG (GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS)

(Case T-228/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS – Earlier national word mark GIORGIO – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – 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 20, 33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 June 2006 (Joined Cases R 107/2005-2 and R 187/2005-2), concerning opposition proceedings between WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS for goods in Classes 3, 14, 18 and 25 – Application No 417709 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: WHG Westdeutsche Handels-gesellschaft mbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark and Community figurative mark GIORGIO for goods in Classes 18, 24 and 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





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 21 June 2006 (Cases R 107/2005-2 and R 187/2005-2) in so far as it dismissed the appeal in Case R 187/2005-2;

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc. during the proceedings before the Court of First Instance;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 – Euro‑Information v OHIM (CYBERCREDIT, CYBERGESTION, CYBERGUICHET, CYBERBOURSE and CYBERHOME)

(Joined Cases T-211/06, T-213/06, T-245/06, T-155/07 and T-178/07)

Community trade mark – Applications for Community word marks CYBERCREDIT, CYBERGESTION, CYBERGUICHET, CYBERBOURSE and CYBERHOME – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Lack of distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 32-36, 42)

Re:

ACTIONS brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 May (Case R 0068/2006-1), 12 June (Case R 0066/2006‑1), 5 July 2006 (Case R 0067/2006-1), 28 February (Case R 1046/2006‑1) and 15 March 2007 (Case R 0067/2006‑1), concerning registration of the signs CYBERGESTION (Case T‑213/06), CYBERCREDIT (Case T‑211/06), CYBERGUICHET (Case T‑245/06), CYBERBOURSE (Case T‑155/07) and CYBERHOME (Case T‑178/07) as Community trade marks.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade marks: Européenne de traitement de l’information (Euro-Information) Community trade marks concerned: Word marks CYBERCREDIT, CYBERGESTION, CYBERGUICHET, CYBERBOURSE and CYBERHOME in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 38 (Application Nos 4114336, 4114716, 4114575, 4114682 and 4114666) Decision of the examiner: Registrations refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeals dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;
3

Article 50 of Regulation No 178/2002 provides: ‘Rapid alert system 1. A rapid alert system for the notification of a direct or indirect risk to human health deriving from food or feed is hereby established as a network. It shall involve the Member States, the Commission and the [European Food Safety] Authority. The Member States, the Commission and the [European Food Safety] Authority shall each designate a contact point, which shall be a member of the network. The Commission shall be responsible for managing the network. 2. Where a member of the network has any information relating to the existence of a serious direct or indirect risk to human health deriving from food or feed, this information shall be immediately notified to the Commission under the rapid alert system. The Commission shall transmit this information immediately to the members of the network. The [European Food Safety] Authority may supplement the notification with any scientific or technical information, which will facilitate rapid, appropriate risk management action by the Member States. 3. Without prejudice to other Community legislation, the Member States shall immediately notify the Commission under the rapid alert system of: (a) any measure they adopt which is aimed at restricting the placing on the market or forcing the withdrawal from the market or the recall of food or feed in order to protect human health and requiring rapid action; (b) any recommendation or agreement with professional operators which is aimed, on a voluntary or obligatory basis, at preventing, limiting or imposing specific conditions on the placing on the market or the eventual use of food or feed on account of a serious risk to human health requiring rapid action; (c) any rejection, related to a direct or indirect risk to human health, of a batch, container or cargo of food or feed by a competent authority at a border post within the European Union. The notification shall be accompanied by a detailed explanation of the reasons for the action taken by the competent authorities of the Member State in which the notification was issued. It shall be followed, in good time, by supplementary information, in particular where the measures on which the notification is based are modified or withdrawn. The Commission shall immediately transmit to members of the network the notification and supplementary information received under the first and second subparagraphs.’
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 – Zero Industry v OHIM – zero Germany (zerorh+)

(Case T-400/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for figurative Community mark zerorh+ – Earlier national figurative and word marks zero – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Similarity between products – 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 25-28, 77-89)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2006 (Case R 958/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between zero Germany GmbH & Co. KG and Zero Industry Srl.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Zero Industry Srl Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark ‘zerorh+’ for goods in Classes 9, 18 and 25 – Application No 2004547 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: zero Germany GmbH & Co. KG, formerly zero International Holding GmbH & Co. KG Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative mark ‘zero’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 and the national word mark ‘zero’ for goods in Class 9 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Zero Industry Srl to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 – Trioplast Wittenheim v Commission

(Case T-26/06)

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market for industrial plastic sacks – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Duration of the infringement – Fines – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances – Cooperation during the administrative procedure – Proportionality

1. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding an infringement – Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission – Scope of the evidential burden – Burden of proof on the undertaking as regards distance taken from decisions taken during meetings (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 39-42, 47-48)

2. Competition – Fines – Joint and several liability for payment – Determination of the amount of fine having to be paid by the undertaking jointly and severally liable – Undertaking transferred several times during the infringement – Succession of several parent companies (Council Regulation No 1/2003; Commission Communication 98/C 9/03) (see paras 69-72)

3. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Assessment – Economic reality at the time the infringement was committed to be taken into account (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(3); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03) (see paras 80-82)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances – Passive or ‘follow-my-leader’ role of the undertaking – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(3); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, para. 3) (see paras 92-94)

5. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Maximum amount – Calculation – Turnover to be taken into consideration – Cumulative turnover of all the companies constituting the economic unit acting as an undertaking (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, para. 5) (see paras 112-113, 115, 145)

6. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Discretion of the Commission – Total amount of fines exceeding the overall volume of the relevant market – Breach of principle of proportionality – None (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 143-145)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a procedure under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 – Industrial sacks) concerning an agreement in the market for plastic industrial sacks and, in the alternative, an application for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;