ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Surrender, revocation and invalidity

–

Relative grounds of invalidity

–

Existence of an identical or similar earlier trade 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 65-67

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2006 (Case R 601/2005‑2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Soft, SA and NewSoft Technology Corp.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders NewSoft Technology Corp. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 28-34)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 99-102)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2006 (Case R 61/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Terumo Kabushiki Kaisha and Boston Scientific Ltd.

Information relating to the case

>lt>8

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Boston Scientific Ltd 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 45, 47-48, 56-57

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 April 2006 (Case R 1430/2005-2) concerning registration of the Community trade mark FLEX No 3795011.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Adobe Systems Inc. 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 27-28, 36-40, 43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 October 2006 (Case R 308/2005-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark GIROPAY as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders giropay GmbH to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 — Phildar v OHIM — Comercial Jacinto Parera (FILDOR)

(Case T-99/06)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark FILDOR — Earlier national semi-figurative mark PHILDAR — Earlier national word mark FILDOR — Earlier international word and semi-figurative marks PHILDAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Articles 8(1)(b), 62 and 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 8(1)(b), 64 and 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 68-85)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2006 (Case R 245/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Phildar SA and Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA Community trade mark sought: Word mark FILDOR for goods in Classes 22 to 26 — Application No 831834 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Phildar SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and international word and figurative marks FILDOR and PHILDAR for goods in Classes 22 to 26 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division’s decision

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 January 2006 (Case R 245/2004-2);
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 10 June 2009 — Vivartia v OHIM — Kraft Foods Schweiz (milko ΔΕΛΤΑ)

(Case T-204/06)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark milko ΔΕΛΤΑ — Earlier Community figurative mark MILKA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of 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 28, 48-50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 June 2006 (Case R 540/2005-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG and Delta Protypos Viomichania Galaktos AE.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Vivartia ABEE Proïonton Diatrofis kai Ypiresion Estiasis, formerly Delta Protypos Viomichania Galaktos AE Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark milko ΔΕΛΤΑ for goods in Class 30 — Application No 2474674 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community, international and national figurative marks and word marks MILKA for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Appeals procedure

–

Appeal brought against a decision of the Opposition Division of the Office

–

Examination by Board of Appeal

–

Scope

–

Evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the prescribed time-limit (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2)) (see paras 30-32

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2006 (Case R 442/2004-2) concerning an opposition procedure between Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH and Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito, SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Review of factors justifying imposing anti-dumping duties – Methodology for determining the export price

(Art. 5 EC; Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 2(8) and (9) and 11(3) and (9))

Summary

It is not provided in Article 11(3) of the basic antidumping regulation (Regulation No 384/96) that the Council has the power in an initial review to use a methodology for the determination of the export price which is incompatible with the requirements laid down in Article 2(8) and (9) of the basic regulation, by referring to the need to make a prospective assessment of the prices charged by the exporters concerned. It is clear from Article 11(9) of the basic regulation that, as a general rule, in a review, the institutions are required to apply the same methodology, including the method of determining the export price under Article 2(8) and (9) of the basic regulation, as that used in the initial investigation which led to the imposition of the anti-dumping duty.

The same provision contains an exception whereby the institutions may apply a methodology other than that used in the initial investigation only where the circumstances have changed, an exception which must however be interpreted strictly. Furthermore, it is clear from Article 11(9) of the basic regulation that the methodology applied must take account of the provisions of Articles 2 and 17 of the basic regulation.

Moreover, the practical effect of Article 11(3) of the basic regulation is broadly ensured by the fact that when assessing the need to continue existing measures the institutions have a wide discretion, which includes the option of carrying out a prospective assessment of the pricing policy of the exporters concerned. However, once the institutions have assessed that need and decided to amend the existing measures, they are bound, when determining the fresh measures, by the provision in Article 11(9) of the basic regulation which confers on them the express power and obligation to apply the methodology prescribed by Article 2 of that regulation.

It follows, first, that when the institutions are determining the export price, their alleged power to carry out prospective analyses is not necessary to ensure the practical effect of Article 11(3) of the basic regulation, and indeed is ruled out by Article 11(9) of the same regulation, and, second, that the implicit power which supposedly stems from Article 11(3) could not override the express powers provided for by Article 11(9), read with Article 2 of the basic regulation. Consequently, Article 11(3) of the basic regulation cannot serve as a legal basis allowing the institutions, when determining the export price, not to apply the methodology prescribed by Article 2(8) and (9) of the basic regulation.

(see paras 41-42, 45, 48-51)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Limits – Prevention of infringements of the competition rules – Determination of the amount of fines – Method of calculating fines – Discretion of the institutions – Leniency notice not relevant (Commission Communication 96/C 207/04) (see paras 93-94)

2. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Reduction of the fine for cooperation of the fined undertaking – Conditions – Discretion of the Commission – Quality and usefulness of the information supplied taken into account (Commission Communication 96/C 207/04, Title D, Section 2) (see para. 96)

3. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Reduction of the fine in return for the cooperation of the undertaking concerned – Discretion of the Commission – Comparisons between the facts of different cases – Indicative character – Factors to be taken into consideration – Breach of the principle of equal treatment – None (Commission Communication 96/C 207/04, Title D, Section 2) (see paras 101, 103-104)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 – Fittings), and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders FRA.BO SpA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement – Undertakings that may be held responsible for participating in an overall cartel – Criteria – No need for a presence in all the territories covered by the cartel (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 22-23, 30, 32, 66, 109)

2. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Participation in meetings of undertakings having an anti-competitive object – Circumstances from which, where the undertaking concerned has not distanced itself from the decisions adopted, it may be concluded that it participated in the ensuing cartel (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 24)

3. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Definition of the market – Purpose – Obligation to define the market in question – Limits (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 80-84)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Division of the undertakings concerned into different categories – Classification by order of size – Margin of discretion of the Commission (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 92-93)

5. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Assessment – Economic reality at the time the infringement was committed to be taken into account – Commission’s use of the same reference year for all the undertakings which participated in the infringement – Lawfulness (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(3); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, Section 1A) (see paras 111-112)

6. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances – Passive or ‘follow-my-leader’ role of the undertaking – Criteria for assessment (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, Section 3, first indent) (see paras 124-126)

7. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances – Absence of benefit – Not included (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see para. 128)

8. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Principle of equal treatment – Differences between undertakings arising from application of the maximum amount – Lawfulness (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 143-144)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part 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), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Plasticos Españoles, SA (ASPLA) to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2007 – Marly v OHIM – Erdal (Top iX)

(Case T-57/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for figurative Community trade mark Top iX – Earlier international word mark TOFIX – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Request for proof of genuine use of the earlier mark submitted for the first time before the Court – Inadmissibility

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the Community judicature (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 63(2) and 74(1)) (see paras 15-18)

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 88, 90)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 December 2005 (Case R 1147/2004‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Erdal GmbH and NV Marly SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: NV Marly SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Top iX for goods in Class 3 – Application No 2326072 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Erdal GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: International word mark TOFIX for goods and services in Classes 3 and 4 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 (Appeal Chamber)

5 July 2007

Case T-247/06 P

Carlos Sanchez Ferriz

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeals – Civil Service – Officials – Career development report – 2003 appraisal – Appeal unfounded)

Appeal: against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2006 in Case F-19/05 Sanchez Ferriz v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-1-41 and II-A-1-135, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held: Appeal dismissed. Mr Carlos Sanchez Ferriz is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Summary

Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

There is a breach of the principle of equal treatment where two classes of persons whose factual and legal situations are not essentially different are treated differently or where different situations are treated in an identical manner.

The fact that, because of the rule establishing a weighting of points awarded under the various headings of the career development report, two officials with exactly the same number of points under one heading of that report receive different total numbers of points when the points awarded under other headings are added, is not to be treated as an infringement of the principle of equal treatment, since that difference reflects the fact that those officials are not in the same situation in relation to those other headings. The same finding is true in a case where two officials who have obtained different numbers of points under one of those headings receive an identical total number of points when the points awarded under the other headings are added.

(see paras 36-37)

See: T‑18/89 and T‑24/89 Tagaras v Court of Justice [1991] ECR II‑53, para. 68; T‑219/02 and T‑337/02 Lutz Herrera v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑319 and II‑1407, para. 93; T‑43/04 Fardoom and Reinard v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑329 and II‑1465, para. 42; T‑47/04 Milbert and Others v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-281 and II-A-2-1455 para. 53
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 17 April 2008 – Nordmilch v OHIM (Vitality)

(Case T-294/06)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark Vitality – 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 28-30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 August 2006 (Case R 746/2004-4) concerning the registration of the word sign Vitality as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Nordmilch eG Community trade mark sought: Verbal mark Vitality for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 32, 33 and 43 – Application No 2835684 Decision of the examiner: Application for registration partially dismissed 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 13 December 2007 – Cabrera Sánchez v OHIM – Industrias Cárnicas Valle (el charcutero artesano)

(Case T-242/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark el charcutero artesano – Earlier national figurative mark El Charcutero – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Absence of similarity between the signs – 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 84-86, 90, 92)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2006 (Case R 790/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Cabrera Sánchez and Industrias Cárnicas Valle, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Industrias Cárnicas Valle, SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark in colour el charcutero artesano for goods in Class 29 – Application No 2823193 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Miguel Cabrera Sánchez Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark El Charcutero for goods in Class 29 – Application No 2047511 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed and registration of the trade mark sought Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;.
ANNULMENT of the decision of the Commission of 30 January 2006 dismissing the applicant’s claim for adjustment, following her divorce, of the amount of the allowances payable under Article 17 of Commission Decision C(2002) 1559 of 30 April 2002 laying down the rules applicable to Seconded national experts, as amended.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 15 October 2008 – Air Products and Chemicals v OHIM – Messer Group (Ferromix, Inomix et Alumix)

(Joined Cases T-305/06 to T-307/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Applications for the Community word marks Ferromix, Inomix and Alumix – Earlier Community word marks FERROMAXX, INOMAXX and ALUMAXX – 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 21, 34, 59-63)

Re:

ACTIONS brought against three decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 1270/2005-2 and R 1408/2005-2; R 1226/2005-2 and R 1398/2005-2; R 1225/2005-2 and R 1397/2005-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. and Messer Group GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Messer Group GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word marks Ferromix, Inomix and Alumix for goods in Classes 1 and 4 – Application Nos 3190063, 3190031 and 3190022 Proprietor of the mark or signs cited in support of the opposition: Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Marks or signs cited in support of the opposition: Word marks FERROMAXX, INOMAXX and ALUMAXX for goods in Class 1 Decisions of the Opposition Division: Oppositions upheld for all goods in Class 1 and dismissed for all goods in Class 4 Decisions of the Board of Appeal: Appeals dismissed; actions by the applicant upheld





Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 1270/2005‑2 and R 1408/2005‑2; R 1226/2005‑2 and R 1398/2005‑2; R 1225/2005‑2 and R 1397/2005‑2);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs of Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.;