ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 —

Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge v OHIM — Promotora Imperial (iHotel)



(Case T-277/11)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark iHotel — Earlier Community figurative mark i-hotel — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 42, 73, 93, 96)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2011 (Case R 832/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Promotora Imperial SA and Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
19

The operative part of the contested decision is worded as follows: ‘Article 1 The State aid implemented by the Hellenic Republic and consisting of the fiscal discrimination put into place in favour of certain casinos through the implementation of several simultaneous, partially mandatory, legal provisions concerning — the fixing of a uniform 80% levy on the price of admission tickets, and — the setting of two unequal regulated prices of admission tickets at EUR 6 and EUR 15 respectively for publicly and privately owned casinos, has been unlawfully put into effect by the Hellenic Republic in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and is incompatible with the internal market since it has placed the following beneficiary casinos: Regency Casino Mont Parnès, Regency Casino Thessaloniki and Corfu Casino (given that Rhodes Casino stopped being a beneficiary in April 1999) at an undue competitive advantage. Article 2 1. The Hellenic Republic shall recover from the beneficiary casinos the incompatible aid referred to in Article 1 which was granted since 21 October 1999. 2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until their actual recovery. 3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) 794/2004. 4. The Hellenic Republic shall cancel all outstanding fiscal discrimination provided under the aid referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision. Article 3 1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective. 2. The Hellenic Republic shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within 4 months following the date of notification of this Decision. Article 4 1. Within 2 months following notification of this Decision, the Hellenic Republic shall submit the following information to the Commission: (a) the list of beneficiaries that have received aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1 and the total amount of aid received by each of them under the contested measure, calculated in accordance with the guidance contained in this Decision; (b) the total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from each beneficiary; (c) a detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision; (d) documents demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid. 2. The Hellenic Republic shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiary. Article 5 This Decision is addressed to The Hellenic Republic.’
41

First of all, the Commission maintained its position with regard to the conclusions which it had drawn following the two investigations referred to in paragraph 35 above, that is to say, that the Italian authorities had been late in carrying out their checks and that this was an irregularity which posed a financial risk for the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF or for the EAGF. Secondly, it stated that, since the additional levy applicable in this case was assigned revenue, the irregularities identified, which related to shortcomings in controls, had led to a loss of revenue for the funds in question. Thus, in order to calculate the amount of the financial correction to be applied, and since it had been unable to determine objectively the scale of the financial loss accruing to the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF or to the EAGF because of the lack of reliable data on the quantities of milk produced, it had applied flat-rate financial corrections on the basis of Document No VI/5330/97. Thirdly, it justified the percentages which it had chosen for the flat-rate financial corrections by reference to the fact that the irregularities identified related to key controls. Fourthly, since the additional levy was assigned revenue, the Commission had, however, determined the level of risk in accordance with a scale that was substantially similar to that described in its letter of 24 March 2010. Fifthly, the Commission pointed out that, in accordance with the guidelines contained in Document No VI/5330/97, the financial correction had to be applied on a regional basis. Moreover, in accordance with the terms of Document AGRI/60637/2006, since a financial correction had already been applied on account of irregularities in identical checks carried out in the regions of Apulia and Abruzzi during the 2002/2003 milk year, it had increased the level of the flat-rate financial correction in the present procedure with respect to those regions on account of the recurrence of the irregularities identified. Sixthly, it set out the reasons for which it had not given effect to the observations made by the Conciliation Body in paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 of its final report.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark constituted by the shape of the product — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17-20)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark representing a vibrator (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 27-38)

3. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 40)

4. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see paras 41, 42)

5. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see paras 53, 54)

6. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2), and Art. 76) (see para. 62)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2012 (Case R 1436/2011-4) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign representing a vibrator.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders FunFactory GmbH to pay the costs.
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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-21, 53)

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 — Figurative mark LIBERTE american blend and word mark La LIBERTAD (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 31, 40, 45, 52, 55)

3. 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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment Complementary nature of the goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

4. 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 33)

5. 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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 59)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 411/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Villiger Söhne GmbH and GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 May 2013 — Rocket Dog Brands v OHIM — Julius-K9 (JULIUS K9)

(Case T-231/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark JULIUS K9 — Earlier Community figurative marks K9 — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 17)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21-23, 30)

3. 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 mark JULIUS K9 and figurative marks K9 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 35, 37, 41, 46, 47)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 March 2012 (Case R 1124/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Rocket Dog Brands LLC and Julius-K9 bt.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public — Pharmaceutical products (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21, 27)
3.

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 22)
2.

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Overlap between the scope of the grounds for refusal set out in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 39, 40)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import duties — Article 236 of Regulation No 2913/92 — Scope — Limits — Application of substantive customs law — Exclusive competence of the national authorities (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 236 and 243) (see paras 24, 25)

2. Own resources of the European Union — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Conditions for non-entry of import duties in the accounts set out in Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 — Obligation to provide the customs authorities with all the necessary information required by the EU and national law — Scope (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b)) (see paras 28, 31)

3. Own resources of the European Union — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Conditions for non-entry of import duties in the accounts set out in Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 — Error of the administration ‘not reasonably detectable’ by the taxpayer — Criteria for assessment — Complexity of the customs regulations (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b); Commission Regulations No 2125/95, Art. 10(1), and No 1864/2004, Art. 14(2)) (see paras 44, 45, 48, 69)

4. Own resources of the European Union — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Conditions for non-entry of import duties in the accounts set out in Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 — Good faith of the taxpayer — Concept — Obligation of the taxpayer to inform himself and research all possible clarifications in the event of doubt as to the definition of the origin of the goods — Scope (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b)) (see paras 82, 83, 85)

5. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import or export duties — Existence of a special situation — Circumstances not implying ‘either manœuvre or obvious negligence’ by the person concerned — Concept of obvious negligence — Cumulative conditions — Refusal of reimbursement or remission where only one of those conditions not met — No breach of principle of proportionality (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 220(2)(b), and 239(1)) (see paras 92-94, 102, 103, 116)

6. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Specific assurances given by the authorities (see para. 110)

7. EU law — Principles — Equal treatment — Concept (see para. 120)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 6393 final of 16 September 2011 determining that remission of import duties was not justified in a particular case.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Representation of an armchair (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 13, 16, 19, 37)

2. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Informed user — Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 14, 15)

3. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Criteria for assessment — Creative licence (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(2) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 May 2012 (Case R 970/2011-3) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Gandia Blasco, SA and Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture, L da .

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Gandia Blasco, SA to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 April 2014 — CITEB and Belgo-Metal v Parliament

(Case T‑488/12)

‛Public works contracts — Tender procedure — Work for the renovation and extension of the Eastman building in Brussels — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Notification of the evaluation committee’s report — Duty to state reasons’

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Summary statement of pleas (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 25, 27)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 32, 35-39, 43)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2012 rejecting the tender made by the applicants in response to a contract notice of 19 May 2012, published in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2012/S 92-1563620) under reference NINLO.AO-2012-005-BRU-UPIB-02, concerning the carrying out of work for the renovation and extension of the Eastman building in Brussels (Belgium) and awarding that contract to another tenderer.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Cit Blaton SA (CITEB) and Belgo-Metal to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 April 2014 — CITEB and Belgo-Metal v Parliament

(Case T‑488/12)

‛Public works contracts — Tender procedure — Work for the renovation and extension of the Eastman building in Brussels — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Notification of the evaluation committee’s report — Duty to state reasons’

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Summary statement of pleas (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 25, 27)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 32, 35-39, 43)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2012 rejecting the tender made by the applicants in response to a contract notice of 19 May 2012, published in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2012/S 92-1563620) under reference NINLO.AO-2012-005-BRU-UPIB-02, concerning the carrying out of work for the renovation and extension of the Eastman building in Brussels (Belgium) and awarding that contract to another tenderer.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Subject matter and scope of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 25, 26)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Word mark PALMA MULATA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 31-40)

3. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of non-discrimination — Irrelevant (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 43)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2012 (Case R 2265/2010-2) concerning proceedings for revocation between Ana Borrajo Canelo, Carlos Borrajo Canelo and Luis Borrajo Canelo, of the one part, and Tecnoazúcar, of the other.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Ana Borrajo Canelo, Mr Carlos Borrajo Canelo and Mr Luis Borrajo Canelo to pay the costs.