ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 2 December 2008 – Nuova Agricast and Cofra v Commission

(Cases T-362/05 and T-363/05)

Non-contractual liability of the Community – Aid scheme provided for under Italian legislation – Scheme declared compatible with the common market – Transitional measure – Certain undertakings excluded – Principle of protection of legitimate expectations – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals – None

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 54, 96-97)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule conferring rights on individuals (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para 76)

3. State aid – General aid scheme approved by the Commission – Individual aid falling within the temporal scope of that scheme – Determination – Date of the legally binding measure requiring the competent national authority to grant the aid (Art. 87 EC) (see paras 80-82)

Re:

ACTION for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the adoption by the Commission of the Decision of 12 July 2000 declaring compatible with the common market an aid scheme for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy (State aid No 715/1999 – Italy (SG 2000 D/105754)) and as a result of the Commission’s conduct during the procedure which preceded the adoption of that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Joins Case T-362/05 and T-363/05 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;

3. Orders Nuova Agricast Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-362/05;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 8 September 2009 – AceaElectrabel v Commission

(Case T-303/05)

State aid – Energy sector – Investment aid for the construction of a district heating system – Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market – Obligation to repay first aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market – Concept of economic unit

1. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision on State aid – Characterisation of adverse effect on competition and the effects on trade between Member States (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 42-45, 51)

2. State aid – Effect on trade between Member States – Adverse effect on competition – Measure benefiting a local business in an economic sector which has been liberalised(Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 59-61, 70-71)

3. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market – Discretion of the Commission (Arts 87(3) EC and 88 EC) (see paras 101-103, 110)

4. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Commission decision making authorisation for the payment of aid subject to prior repayment by the undertaking concerned of unlawful aid previously received (Arts 87(3)(c) EC and 88(2) EC) (see paras 165-167)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/598/EC of 16 March 2005 concerning State aid that Italy (Regione Lazio) intends to grant for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (OJ 2006 L 244, p. 8).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders AceaElectrabel Produzione SpA to pay the costs, except those referred to in point 3 below;
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 enjoying a reputation

–

Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 56-66

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 February 2006 (Case R 669/2003‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Japan Tobacco, Inc. and Torrefacção Camelo L da .

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Japan Tobacco, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM);

3. Orders Torrefacção Camelo L da to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Summary



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

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

Summary

For the average German consumer, there is no likelihood of confusion for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark between the figurative mark containing the word element ‘castellani’, registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought in respect of ‘alcoholic beverages except beer, liqueur, sparkling wine and Champagne’ in Class 33 of the Nice Agreement, and the word mark CASTELLUCA, previously registered in Germany for ‘wines’, in Class 33.

Although: (i) the dominant element of the contested trade mark is its verbal element, namely the word ‘castellani’; (ii) the word elements ‘castellani’ and ‘castelluca’ have a certain degree of visual similarity, since they are of the same length and the first seven letters are identical and placed in the same order (‘c-a-s-t-e-l-l’); and (iii) the consumer’s attention is often caught by the first part of words, the use of words meaning ‘castle’ is very common for the goods concerned, and in order to be able correctly to identify a wine whose name begins with one of those words, the consumer must examine the suffix attached to it very carefully. In the present case, the final letters of the conflicting signs, that is, ‘a’, ‘n’ and ‘i’ in the contested trade mark and ‘u’, ‘c’ and ‘a’ in the earlier mark, are different. Accordingly, in the overall visual assessment of the signs, the difference established between the word elements ‘castellani’ and ‘castelluca’ is sufficient to rule out any visual similarity between the competing signs.

As regards the phonetic comparison, the dissimilarities between the signs, due to the difference between the suffixes are sufficient for them to be distinguished aurally in German, in spite of the fact that the prefixes are the same.

As regards the conceptual comparison, it should be noted, first, that the use of a word meaning ‘castle’ is common in the wine sector, and that the German consumer is accustomed to seeing a large number of trade marks for wine whose name begins with ‘Schloss’, ‘castello’, ‘château’, ‘castel’ or ‘castle’ when purchasing wine in a specialist shop, a supermarket or a hypermarket or when choosing a wine from a wine list in a restaurant. He will therefore attach less significance to the prefix and closely examine the suffix of the mark on the bottle label. Secondly, the trade mark applied for contains an Italian family name, which will be recognised as such by the target public.

Thus, when making an overall assessment of the marks at issue, the visual, phonetic and conceptual differences between the conflicting signs are sufficient, in spite of the identical nature of the goods covered, to preclude the resemblances between them giving rise to a likelihood of confusion on the part of the average German consumer.

(see paras 53-60)
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 51-57, 60-61

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1024/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Stradivarius España, SA and Cristina Ricci.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Stradivarius España, SA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 29-30

)

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action brought against an implemented decision (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 18-19)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision annulling a public supply contract tender procedure (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 29, 32-34)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION to annul the Commission decision of 14 July 2006 to annul the tender procedure in respect of Europe Aid/122742/C/SUP/RU relating to the supply of IT and office equipment for the information network and of social integration and rehabilitation-related equipment for the disabled in the federal district of the Volga (Russian Federation).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the Commission decision of 14 July 2006 annulling the tender procedure in respect of Europe Aid/122742/C/SUP/RU;

2. Orders the Commission and DC-Hadler Networks to pay their own 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 52

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2006 (Case R 1058/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Puertas Proma SAL and Promat GmbH.

Information relating to the case

>lt>7

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Promat GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 27-28

)

Subject of the case

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

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Jean Cassegrain SAS to pay the costs.
Case T-162/06

Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛State aid — Regional aid for large investment projects — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Statement of reasons — Incentive effect of the aid — Necessity of the aid’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 14 January 2009 II ‐ 4

Summary of the Judgment

The statement of reasons required under Article 253 EC must be appropriate to the measure in question and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted that measure, in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent court to carry out its review. The Commission, in a decision finding a State measure to be incompatible operating aid which cannot be authorised due to the lack of incentive effect and necessity, must explicitly state the reasons for that finding. (see paras 26-28)

The Commission can declare aid compatible with Article 87(3) EC only if it can establish that the aid contributes to the attainment of one of the objectives specified in that provision, something which, under normal market conditions, the recipient firms would not achieve by their own actions. In other words, the Member States must not be permitted to make payments which, although they would improve the financial situation of the recipient undertaking, are not necessary for the attainment of the objectives specified in Article 87(3) EC. It is not acceptable for aid to include arrangements, in particular as regards its amount, whose restrictive effects exceed what is necessary to enable the aid to attain the objectives permitted by the Treaty. Aid which does not require the beneficiary either to pay consideration or to contribute to an objective in the common interest is operating aid intended to cover the normal running costs that the beneficiary has to bear and, as such, cannot be authorised. Such aid distorts the conditions of competition. (see paras 65, 66, 74, 75)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 — Arcandor v OHIM — dm drogerie markt (S-HE)

(Case T-391/06)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark S-HE — Earlier national word mark SHE, earlier national and international figurative trade mark She — 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 29-33, 55-68)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM No R 301/2006-1 of 26 September 2006 concerning opposition proceedings between Karstadt Quelle AG and dm drogerie market GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: dm drogerie markt GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark ‘S-HE’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 32, 38, 41 and 42 — Application No 2766723 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Arcandor AG, formerly Karstadt Quelle AG Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘SHE’ for goods in Classes 3 and 25, German figurative mark ‘She’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 16, 18 and 25, and international figurative mark ‘She’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 16, 18 and 25 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 (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2009 — Commission v Burie Onderzoek en Advies

(Case T-179/06)

‛Arbitration clause — Contracts concluded under the RACE II programme and a specific programme in the field of telematic applications of common interest — Repayment of part of the advances paid — Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance — Partial inadmissibility — Principle of sound administration — Counterclaim’

Procedure — Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 59-62, 100)

Re:

APPLICATION pursuant to an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC seeking an order that Burie Onderzoek en Advies BV repay part of the advances paid by the European Community, together with default interest, in implementation of two financing contracts in the field of advanced communications technologies in Europe and of telematic applications.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses as inadmissible the action concerning the repayment of advances paid by the Commission under the Barbara (Broad Range of Community Based Telematics Applications in Rural Areas) contract with reference number ‘Project R 2022’ in so far as that action is directed against Burie Onderzoek en Advies BV, on the ground that it is clear that the Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the action;

2. Orders Burie Onderzoek en Advies, under the Telepromise (Telematics to Provide for Missing Services) contract with reference number ‘Project UR 1028’, to pay the Commission the principal sum of EUR 109535.62 plus default interest at the applicable statutory rate in the Netherlands from 31 August 2001 until full payment of the debt;

3. Dismisses the counterclaim of Burie Onderzoek en Advies;
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 48-49

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 196/2005-2 and R 211/2005-2) and of 25 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 456/2005-2 and R 502/2005-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH and UniCredito Italiano SpA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders that Cases T-303/06 and T-337/06 be joined for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Annuls the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 196/2005-2 and R 211/2005-2) in so far as it dismisses the appeal by UniCredito Italiano SpA in Case R 211/2005-2 by upholding the oppositions to the registration of the trade mark applied for, UNIWEB, with regard to ‘Banking business; financial affairs; monetary affairs; insurance; financial and insurance consultancy and information; credit/debit card services; banking and financial services via the Internet’ in Class 36;

3. Annuls the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 456/2005-2 and R 502/2005‑2) in so far as it dismisses the appeal by UniCredito Italiano SpA in Case R 456/2005-2 by upholding the oppositions to the registration of the trade mark applied for, UniCredit Wealth Management, with regard to ‘Banking business; financial affairs; monetary affairs; assurance; financial information’ in Class 36;

4. Dismisses the applications of Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH;

5. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 24-31

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2006 (Case R 447/2006-4), relating to the application for registration of the word mark 1000 as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.
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 – 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)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Trioplast Witteheim SA to pay the costs.