ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Assessment factors (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 31, 34, 37)

2. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Deterrent effect of the fine (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15; Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see para. 61)

3. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Guidelines adopted by the Commission (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see para. 62)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Turnover of the undertaking concerned (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15; Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, Section 1A) (see paras 64-68, 70)

5. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – No need to differentiate between the undertakings involved in the same infringement by reference to their size (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Notices 96/C 207/04 and 98/C 9/03) (see para. 71)

6. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Equal treatment of the various undertakings participating in a cartel (Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, Section 1A, sixth para.) (see paras 76, 79)

7. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Determination of the fine in proportion to the factors for assessing the gravity of the infringement (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2)) (see para. 82)

8. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Undertaking not able to rely on the principle of equal treatment in order to obtain an unlawful reduction (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2)) (see para. 87)

9. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision imposing fines (Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 15(2), and 1/2003, Art. 23(3); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see para. 91)

10. Competition – Fines – Amount – Reduction in fine in exchange for cooperation – Assessment of the quality and usefulness of the information provided (Commission Notice 96/C 207/04, Title D, Section 2) (see paras 102, 110-115)

11. Competition – Fines – Amount – Reduction in fine in exchange for cooperation – Need for the undertaking to cooperate in the administrative procedure concerning the infringement in question (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15; Commission Notice 96/C 207/04, Title D, Section 2) (see paras 125, 129)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3452 of 14 September 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.337 – PO/Thread), as amended by Commission Decision C(2005) 3765 of 13 October 2005 and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Oxley Threads Ltd to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture – EAGGF – Grant of aids and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an effective system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks – Scope – Unreliable controls – Disallowance by the Fund (Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 74-75, 269-270)

2. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Challenge by the Member State concerned – Burden of proof – Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (Council Regulation No 1258/1999) (see paras 76-77, 313)

3. Acts of the institutions – Rules of administrative conduct of general scope – Measure designed to produce external effects – Scope (see para. 192)

4. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 251-252)

5. European Union law – Principles – Proportionality – Scope – Discretion of the EU legislature in the area of the common agricultural policy – Judicial review – Limits (Arts 40 TFEU and 43 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 1169/97, Art. 20(5), first para.) (see paras 289-295)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2055/555/EC of 15 July 2005, excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2005 L 188, p. 36), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the beef, arable crops and fruit and vegetables sectors.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2055/555/EC of 15 July 2005, excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as it excludes from Community financing expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in respect of extensification payments made for the years 2000 and 2001;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of the European Commission;

4. Orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs of the Hellenic Republic.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 6 March 2007 – Golf USA v OHIM (GOLF USA)

(Case T‑230/05)

Community trade mark – Application for a Community word mark GOLF USA – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Absence of distinctive character

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 – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 32-33, 45, 49-50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2005 (Case R 823/2004‑2) refusing the application for registration of the word mark GOLF USA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Golf USA, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark GOLF USA for goods and services in classes 25, 28 and 35 – Application No 3073715 Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2006 – Commission v Parthenon

(Case T‑7/05)

Arbitration clause – Fourth framework programme of activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration – Recovery of sums advanced

Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC; Decision of the European Parliament and Council No 1110/94) (see paras 73-92, 94-107)

Re:

ACTION brought pursuant to Article 238 EC for the recovery of sums advanced within the framework of Contract FAIR-CT98-9544, terminated by the Commission for failure by the defendant to perform its contractual obligations.

Operative part

The Court:

Orders the defendant, Parthenon AE Ikodomikon – Tekhnikon – Touristikon – Viomikhanikon – Emporikon kai Exagogikon Ergasion, to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 154 383.53, plus interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus 1.5 percentage points for the period from 31 July to 31 December 2002 and plus 2 percentage points as from 1 January 2003 until full and final discharge;

Dismisses the application as to the remainder;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2007 – Evropaiki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-250/05)

Public service contracts – Community tendering procedure – Provision of services for the collection, production and dissemination of electronic publications, in particular the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union – Rejection of a tender – Equal treatment – Obligation to state reasons – No manifest error of assessment

1. European Communities’ public procurement – Tendering procedure (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 89(1)) (see paras 45-46)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2)) (see paras 68-69, 75, 78)

3. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders (see para. 89)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities of 15 April 2005 to reject the applicant’s tender in connection with the call for tenders issued on 19 November 2004 (OJ 2004 S 226) for the provision of services in relation to the collection, production and dissemination of electronic publications, in particular the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union , and to award the contract to the successful tenderer.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 15 May 2007 – Black & Decker v OHIM – Atlas Copco (Three-dimensional representations of yellow and black electric power tools)

(Joined Cases T-239/05, T-240/05, T-245/05 to T-247/05, T-255/05, T-274/05 to T-280/05)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Opposition period – Fax transmission – Admissibility – Clear identification of the earlier trade mark – Rule 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

1. Community trade mark – Proceedings before the OHIM authorities – Transmission of communications to the Office (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rule 80(2)) (see paras 59-64)

2. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Obligation of the opponent to clearly identify the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 42(1); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rule 18(1)) (see para., 102)

Re:

THIRTEEN ACTIONS brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 April 2005 (R 727/2004-1, R 729/2004-1, R 723/2004-1, R 730/2004-1 and R 724/2004-1), of 27 April 2005 (R 722/2004-1) and of 3 May 2005 (R 788/2004-1, R 789/2004-1, R 790/2004-1, R 791/2004-1, R 792/2004-1, R 793/2004-1 and R 794/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Atlas Copco AB and The Black & Decker Corporation.

Information relating to the cases

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The Black & Decker Corporation Community trade mark sought: Figurative marks coloured yellow and black representing electric tools; three-dimensional representations of two electric tools in yellow and black and one representation of the juxtaposition of the two colours yellow and black, for products in Class 7 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Atlas Copco AB Mark or sign cited in opposition : Unregistered marks and signs, commercially used in all Member States to designate electric tools Decision of the Opposition Division: Oppositions dismissed as inadmissible Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decisions and matters referred back to the Opposition Division for further consideration





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the actions;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 15 January 2008 – Hoya v OHIM – Indo (AMPLITUDE)

(Case T-9/05)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark AMPLITUDE – Earlier national figurative mark AMPLY – 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 59, 62-64)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2004 (Case R 433/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Indo Internacional SA and Hoya Kabushiki Kaisha.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Hoya Kabushiki Kaisha Community trade mark sought: Word mark AMPLITUDE for goods in Class 9 – Application No 001723931 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Indo Internacional, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark AMPLY Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision; registration refused





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2008 – Le Canne v Commission

(Case T-375/05)

Agriculture – Community financial assistance – Financial irregularity vitiating the request for payment of the balance – Decision to reduce the assistance – Expiry of the limitation period – Action for annulment and damages

1. Own resources of the European Communities – Regulation on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests – Irregularity – Definition (Council Regulation No 2988/95 Art. 1(2), (4) and (5))

2. Own resources of the European Communities – Regulation on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests – Prosecution of irregularities – Limitation period (Council Regulation No 2988/95, Arts 3 and 4(1))

3. Own resources of the European Communities – Regulation on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests – Prosecution of irregularities – Limitation period (Council Regulation No 2988/95, Art. 3(1), para. 2; Commission Regulation No 1116/88, Art. 8)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Damage – Causal link – Burden of proof

Re:

APPLICATION to annul Decision C(2005) 2939 of 26 July 2005 reducing the outstanding balance of Community financial assistance granted to the application for the modernisation and renovation of its fish farm facilities and an application for compensation for harm arising from that reduction.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 2939 of 26 July 2005 in so far as it reduces the Community financial assistance granted to Azienda Agricola ‘Le Canne’ Srl for project IT/0016/90/02 on account of the imputation to the eligible expenditure to that assistance of the profit made by Giradello SpA for the performance of works related to that project;

2. Dismisses the action for damages;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2010 – Outokumpu and Luvata v Commission

(Case T-20/05)

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Copper plumbing tube industry – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Fines – Size of the relevant market – Aggravating circumstance – Repeat infringement

1. Procedure – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1) and 48(2)) (see paras 57-58)

2. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Aggravating circumstances – Repeat infringement (Art. 65 CS; Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, para. 2) (see paras 61-63)

3. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Aggravating circumstances – Repeat infringement (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, para. 2) (see paras 69-70)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Size of the product market in question – To be taken into consideration (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2)) (see para. 77)

Re:

APPLICATION for cancellation or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants under Article 2(j) of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 – Copper plumbing tubes).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 46, 52)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(1)) (see paras 41-42)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2006 (Case R 987/2005-2), relating to registration of the figurative sign WinDVD Creator as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders InterVideo Inc. 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 – Proof of registration or filing of the earlier mark (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Rule 16(2)) (see para. 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 (see para. 76)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2005 (Case R 897/2004-1) concerning opposition proceedings between (a) Juan Torrens Cuadrado and Josep Gilbert Sanz and (b) Portela & Companhia, SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 September 2005 (Case R 897/2004-1) in so far as it orders the applicant to pay the sum of EUR 600 towards the costs incurred by Mr Torrens Cuadrado and Mr Gilbert Sanz for the opposition proceedings;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders Portela & Companhia, SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, half the costs incurred by OHIM.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Observations of third parties and opposition

–

Examination of the opposition

–

Proof of use of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3) (see paras 37, 64

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2006 (Case R 223/2005‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Charlo – Confecções para Homens, Artigos de Lã e Outros SA and Charlott SARL.

Information relating to the case

>lt>9

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Charlott SARL to pay the costs, except those incurred by the intervener;

3. Orders Charlo – Confecções para Homens, Artigos de Lã e Outros SA 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 devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 28-30

)

Subject of the case

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

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nordmilch eG 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 54

)

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

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

Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules (Council Regulation No 1258/1999) (see paras 21-23, 91, 100)

2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products (Commission Regulation No 2571/97, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 48-55, 58, 68)

3. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Financing granted for national projects (Commission Regulation No 2571/97, Art. 23(2)) (see para. 71)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2006/554/EC of 27 July 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 218, p. 12), in so far as it excludes certain expenses incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the sector of concentrated butter in the food industry.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1), (b)) (see paras 21, 34, 59-63

)

Subject of the case

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

>lt>8

Operative part

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.;

3. Orders Messer Group GmbH to bear its own costs.