ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal brought against a decision of the Office’s Opposition Division – Assessment by the Board of Appeal – Scope

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74)

Summary

It follows from the continuity in terms of their functions between the departments of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) that, within the scope of application of Article 74(1) in fine of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, relating to relative grounds for refusal, the Board of Appeal is required to base its decision on all the matters of fact and of law which the party concerned introduced either in the proceedings before the department which heard the application at first instance or, subject only to Article 74(2), relating to facts or evidence not introduced in due time, in the appeal.

Thus, the continuity in terms of their functions between the various departments of the Office does not mean that a party which, before the department hearing the application at first instance, did not produce certain matters of fact or of law within the time-limits laid down before that department would not be entitled, under Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94, to rely on those matters before the Board of Appeal. On the contrary, the continuity in terms of functions means that such a party is entitled to rely on those matters before the Board of Appeal, subject to compliance with Article 74(2) of that regulation before the Board.

(see para. 29)
Case T-71/02





Classen Holding KG

v

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





«(Community trade mark – Admissibility of appeal before the Board of Appeal – Formal requirements – Filing of a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal – Time-limit for applying for restitutio in integrum – Articles 59 and 78 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 17 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Community trade mark – Provisions governing procedure – Restitutio in integrum – Time-limit for appeal – Starting point

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 78(2))

2.. Community trade mark – Provisions governing procedure – Restitutio in integrum – Appeal – Formal requirements

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 78(1) and (3))

3.. Community trade mark – Appeal procedure – Time-limit and form of the appeal – Statement of grounds to be filed within the time-limit – Conditions of admissibility

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 59; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 49)

1.

2.

3.
Case T-85/02





Pedro Díaz SA

v

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





«(Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community word mark CASTILLO – Earlier national figurative mark EL CASTILLO – Likelihood of confusion – Similar marks already on the relevant market)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 4 November 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar products or services – Similarity between the products in question – Assessment criteria – Complementary nature of the products – Fact that products belong to a single product family – Relevance

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

2.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar products or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Distinctive character or reputation of the earlier mark – Relevance

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

3.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar products or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word mark CASTILLO and word and figurative mark containing the word EL CASTILLO

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

1.

2.

3.
Case T-177/02

Malagutti-Vezinhet SA

v

Commission of the European Communities

(General safety of goods – Community rapid alert system for food and feed – Claim for compensation)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 10 March 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Where one of the conditions is not satisfied – Action for damages must be dismissed

(Art. 288, second para., EC)

2. Approximation of laws – General safety of goods – Directive 92/59 – Community rapid alert system for food and feed – Respective powers of the national authorities and of the Commission

(Council Directive 92/59)

3. Approximation of laws – General safety of goods – Directive 92/59 – Community rapid alert system for food and feed – Precautionary principle

(Council Directive 92/59)

1. Non-contractual liability on the part of the Community is subject to a number of conditions: unlawfulness of the conduct alleged against the Community institutions, actual damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution and the damage complained of. If one of those conditions is not satisfied, the entire action must be dismissed and it is not necessary to consider the other conditions.

(see para. 32)

2. The Community rapid alert system for food and feed introduced by Directive 92/59 on general product safety confers on the national authorities only, and not on the Commission, responsibility for establishing whether there is a serious and immediate risk to the health and safety of consumers. It is thus incumbent upon the national authorities, once they have detected a serious and immediate risk the effects of which extend or could extend beyond their territory, immediately to inform the Commission and provide it with information to identify the product and the supply chain. The Commission, for its own part, confines itself to checking whether the information falls, as such, within the scope of the directive, and the accuracy of the findings and analyses that led the national authorities to send that information does not have to be checked.

(see paras 51-52)

3. As regards the prevention of risks to the health of consumers, and if any doubt remains, under the precautionary principle prevailing in the matter of the protection of public health the competent authority may be obliged to take appropriate measures to prevent certain potential risks for public health without having to wait until the existence and seriousness of those risks has been fully demonstrated. If it was necessary to wait until all the research was completed before adopting such measures the precautionary principle would be rendered devoid of purpose. That reasoning also applies in the case of a rapid information procedure such as the one introduced by Directive 92/59 on general product safety, and, consequently, an undertaking which is a victim of that alert system introduced in order to protect human health must accept its adverse economic consequences, since the protection of public health must take precedence over economic considerations.

(see para. 54)
Case T-311/02

Vitaly Lissotschenko and Joachim Hentze

v

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

(Community trade mark – Application to register the word mark LIMO – Absolute grounds for refusal – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), 20 July 2004

Summary of the Judgment

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 a product – Word sign ‘LIMO’

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

The word sign LIMO, in respect of which registration is sought for goods in Classes 9 and 10 under the Nice Agreement which include, in particular, lasers for non‑medical and for medical purposes, may serve to designate, for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94, one of the essential characteristics of the goods referred to in the trade mark application from the point of view of the relevant public which must be deemed to be composed of specialists, who are well‑informed, observant and circumspect. The specialist consumer will be in a position to establish a sufficiently direct and specific link between the goods covered and the sign and will perceive that sign as the abbreviation for ‘Laser Intensity Modulation’ and as referring, at the very least, to one of the possible intended purposes of those goods, namely as part of a laser intensity modulation system.

(see paras 28, 45)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. 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 marks ‘EMILIO PUCCI’ and ‘EMIDIO TUCCI’

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

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 – Extended protection of the earlier mark for goods or services which are not similar – Condition – Reputation of the mark in the Member State or in the Community – Definition – Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5))

Summary

1. There is no likelihood of confusion on the part of Spanish end consumers between the figurative sign EMILIO PUCCI, for which registration as a Community trade mark is sought in respect of ‘Leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes; animal skins, hides; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks; whips, harness and saddlery’ and ‘Textiles and textile goods, not included in other classes; bed and table covers’ within Classes 18 and 24 of the Nice Agreement, and the figurative marks EMIDIO TUCCI, registered previously in Spain in respect of ‘Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices’ and ‘Clothing, footwear, headgear’ within Classes 3 and 25 of that agreement.

Although the conflicting signs are in fact similar within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, a likelihood of confusion can be ruled out because there is no similarity between the goods in question, in so far as they differ in many respects, such as their nature, intended purpose, origin and distribution channels, and there is also no competition between those goods.

(see paras 38, 43-44, 59)

2. In order to satisfy the requirement of reputation within the meaning of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, which provides for extended protection of the registered mark for goods or services which are not similar, an earlier national or Community mark must be known by a significant part of the public concerned by the goods or services covered by that trade mark. In examining whether this condition is fulfilled, the national court must take into consideration all the relevant facts of the case, in particular the market share held by the trade mark, the intensity, geographical extent and duration of its use, and the amount spent by the undertaking in promoting it.

(see para. 67)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Actions before the Community judicature – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance – Review of the legality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal with regard to the issues of law raised before them – Examination of the Court’s own motion as to whether the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the action before the Court of First Instance are based on the same subject-matter

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

2. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Time-limit and form of appeal – To be brought in writing and within a period of two months – Payment of the amount corresponding to the fee for appeal – Act insufficient of itself

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 59)

Summary

1. The purpose of actions before the Court under Article 63 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark is to obtain a review of the legality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation within the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). While the Court, under Article 63(3) of Regulation No 40/94, ‘has jurisdiction to annul or to alter the contested decision’, that paragraph must be construed in the light of Article 63(2), which provides that an ‘action may be brought on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaty, of this Regulation or of any rule of law relating to their application or misuse of power’, and in the context of Articles 229 EC and 230 EC. The Court’s review of the legality of a decision by a Board of Appeal must therefore be carried out with regard to the issues of law raised before the Board of Appeal. The question whether the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the action brought before the Court are based on the same subject-matter is one of public policy, which falls to be examined of the Court’s own motion.

(see paras 25, 28)

2. Article 59 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark provides that notice of appeal must be filed in writing at the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) within two months of the date of notification of the decision appealed from.

While that article provides that the appeal is deemed to be filed only when the fee for appeal has been paid, the mere payment of the corresponding amount cannot be considered to be equivalent to the notice required by the article. There is, in that regard, no duty on the Office and, more particularly, on its Accounting Department to alert potential appellants to a Board of Appeal to the consequences of failure to comply with the formalities laid down by Regulation No 40/94.

(see paras 56, 58-59)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Community – Direct effect

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Arts 2(1), 3(1), and 6)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness

(Arts 226 EC and 288, second para., EC)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not present

(Art. 288, second para., EC)

Summary

1. A provision of an agreement concluded by the Community with non-member States is to be regarded as having direct effect when, having regard to its terms and the subject-matter and nature of the agreement, it contains a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure.

That is not the case of Article 2(1) of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, which describes in general terms the purpose of that agreement. That provision is programmatic in nature. It is not sufficiently precise and unconditional and is of necessity subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of subsequent measures, precluding its having direct effect on the situation of an economic operator. The same is true with regard to Article 3(1) of that agreement, the first subparagraph of which indicates in general terms the purpose of the preparatory stage of the association and the second subparagraph of which refers to the protocols annexed for the definition of the implementing rules of that stage. The same conclusion must also be reached with regard to Article 6 of that agreement, which is an institutional provision creating an Association Council.

(see paras 39, 42-44)

2. With regard to the Community’s non-contractual liability, the Community cannot be held liable for an alleged inadequacy of the financial support allocated to Turkey, since that deficit was the result of opposition from a Member State. Even if that opposition can be considered to constitute a failure on the part of that Member State to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty, the Commission was not obliged to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations in accordance with Article 226 EC. Accordingly, the Commission’s failure to bring such an action does not, in any event, constitute an unlawful act, so that it cannot involve the non-contractual liability of the Community.

(see paras 50-51)

3. In order for the Community to incur non-contractual liability within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, a series of conditions must be met, namely the conduct of which the institutions are accused must have been unlawful, the damage must be real and a causal link must exist between the conduct and the damage complained of. 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 for that liability.

(see paras 34, 62)
Keywords



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

–

Word Marks JELLO SCHUHPARK and Schuhpark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 51

)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Commission decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of that treaty (Art. 65(1), (4) and (5) CS; Council Regulation No 17, Arts 3 and 15(2)) (see paras 55, 57, 72-73, 77)

2. ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Commission’s competence under Article 65(4) and (5) CS to establish and penalise an infringement of Article 65(1) CS – Disappearance on expiry of the ECSC Treaty (Arts 65(1), (4) and (5) CS and 97 CS; Art. 305(1) EC; Merger Treaty) (see paras 89-92, 94, 96)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002, relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 – Reinforcing bars).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 – Reinforcing bars) with regard to Feralpi Siderurgica SpA;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Feralpi Siderurgica;

3. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 18 January 2006 − Regione Marche v Commission

(Case T-107/03)

Integrated Mediterranean Programme (IMP) for the Marche Region (Italy) – Ending of financial assistance – Ineligible expenditure – Action for annulment – Absence of legal basis – Legitimate expectation – Failure to state grounds

1. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Integrated Mediterranean Programmes (Council Regulation No 2088/85) (see paras 92, 94, 97, 100)

2. Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions (see para. 129)

3. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Integrated Mediterranean Programmes (see paras 142-143)

4. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see para. 149)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of the Commission decision contained in a letter of 18 December 2002 to the Italian Government by which the Commission announced that it was ending Community financial assistance granted under the Integrated Mediterranean Programme (IMP) for the Marche Region (Italy)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2007 – CB v Commission

(Case T-266/03)

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Bankcards – Decision ordering an investigation – Article 14(3) of Regulation No 17 – Statement of reasons – Proportionality

1. Competition – Administrative procedure – Decision ordering an investigation – Duty to state reasons – Scope (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 36-37)

2. Competition – Administrative procedure – Decision ordering an investigation – Respect for the principle of proportionality (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 62-64)

3. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s powers of investigation – Scope – Access to the premises of undertakings (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14) (see paras 69-72)

4. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s powers of investigation – Decision ordering an investigation – Request for assistance addressed to national authorities – Judicial review – Exclusive competence of the national court (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 14(6)) (see para. 75)

Re:

ACTION for, firstly, the annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 1524/9 of 7 May 2003 in Case COMP/D1/38.606 ordering Groupement des cartes bancaires and its subsidiaries to submit to an investigation under Article 14(3) of Council Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles [81] and [82] of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87), as amended, and, secondly, action for the removal from the file of all documents and other evidence brought to the knowledge of the Commission during the investigation and for their return to the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 25 January 2006 − Le Canne v Commission

(Case T-276/03)

Judgment annulling a Commission decision reducing the amount of Community financial assistance – Procedures for compliance – Action for failure to act – No need to adjudicate – Action for damages

1. Actions for failure to act – Failure remedied after commencement of proceedings – Subject-matter of the action ceasing to exist – No need to adjudicate (Arts 232 EC and 233 EC) (see paras 34-39)

2. Actions for damages – Subject-matter – Application for damages suffered by reason of a failure to act on the part of a Community institution (Art. 235 EC) (see paras 45-48)

Re:

APPLICATION for, first, a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 March 2002 in Case T-241/00 Le Canne v Commission [2002] ECR II-1251 and, secondly, damages for the loss alleged to have resulted from that failure

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim alleging failure to act;

2. Dismisses the claim for compensation;