ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

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

Summary

It follows from the continuity in terms of functions between the departments of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) that, within the scope of application of Article 74(1) in fine of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, concerning relative grounds for refusal, the Board of Appeal is required to base its decision on all the matters of fact and of law which the party concerned introduced either in the proceedings before the department which heard the application at first instance or, subject only to Article 74(2) relating to belatedly-submitted evidence, in the appeal.

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

(see para. 37)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

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

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

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

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 43(5), 62(1), and 74(1)) (see paras 17-18)

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 59-60)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2003 (Case R 610/2001-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Nacional Motor, SA and Volkswagen AG

Information relating to the case :

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Sets aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 June 2003 in so far as it dismisses the application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign Variant for goods and services other than those in Classes 7, 12 and 37;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the applicant 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 114, 127, 129-130

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2003 (Case R 814/2000‑2) relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratoires Goëmar and La Mer Technology, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders La Mer Technology, Inc. to pay its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Laboratoires Goëmar.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Banco Comercial dos Açores v Commission

(Case T-75/03)

‛State aid — Tax measures adopted by a regional or local authority — Reductions on the rate of income tax for natural and legal persons having their tax residence in the Azores — Decision declaring aid schemes incompatible with the common market and requiring recovery of aid paid out — Actions for annulment — Individual concern — Admissibility — Definition of State aid — Selective nature — Adverse effect on competition — Effect on trade between Member States — Equal treatment — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Action by a recipient undertaking of individual aid granted under that scheme and having to be recovered — Admissibility (Art. 230, para. 4, EC) (see paras 38-47)

2. State aid — Concept — Selective nature of the measure — Tax measure adopted by an infra-State body — Rate of tax lower than national rate — Criteria for assessment (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 74, 75)

3. State aid — Effect on trade between Member States — Adverse effect on competition — Criteria for assessment (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 86, 87)

4. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Limits (Art. 87(3) EC) (see para. 100)

5. State aid — Commission decision — Distinction between two sectors on the basis of evidence supplied by the Member State concerned — Breach of the principle of equal treatment — None (Art. 87(3)(a) EC) (see paras 111-116)

6. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Aid granted in breach of the rules of procedure laid down in Article 88(3) EC — Possible legitimate expectation on the part of the beneficiaries — Legal certainty — Protection — Conditions and limits (Art. 88(3) EC) (see paras 124-126)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the final part of Article 1, as well as Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2003/442/EC of 11 December 2002 on the part of the scheme adapting the national tax system to the specific characteristics of the Autonomous Region of the Azores which concerns reductions in the rates of income and corporation tax (OJ 2003 L 150, p. 52).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Banco Comercial dos Açores, SA to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the Commission of the European Communities;
Case T-387/03

Proteome Inc.

v

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

(Community trade mark – Word mark BIOKNOWLEDGE – Absolute grounds for refusal – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Descriptive sign)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 19 January 2005

Summary of the Judgment

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods – Word sign ‘BIOKNOWLEDGE’

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

From the point of view of a specialist public in the medical, pharmaceutical or other life-science fields and the care business sector, the term BIOKNOWLEDGE may serve to designate, for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the essential characteristics of the goods and services covered by the application to register that term in respect of certain goods and services containing information about organisms or making it possible to gain access to such information and falling within Classes 9, 16 and 42 of the Nice Agreement.

Inasmuch as the relevant public consists of specialists in the life-science and care business fields, the link between the possible meaning of the term BIOKNOWLEDGE, namely, specific information about living organisms, that is to say, information particular to those organisms, on the one hand, and the goods and services in question, on the other, is not too vague or indeterminate, with the result that there exists, from the point of view of that public, a sufficiently direct and concrete connection between the meaning of that term and the characteristics of those goods and services. Moreover, the structure of the term BIOKNOWLEDGE cannot be perceived as unusual by the consumers concerned, since it complies with the English rules of word composition.

(see paras 28, 32, 34-35, 41-42)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 8 March 2005 − Leder & Schuh v OHIM – Schuhpark Fascies (JELLO SCHUHPARK)

(Case T-32/03)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Earlier national word mark ‘Schuhpark’ – Application for Community word mark ‘JELLO SCHUHPARK’ – Relative ground for refusal – Partial refusal to register – 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 – Word Marks JELLO SCHUHPARK and Schuhpark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 51)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 November 2002, in the corrected version of 9 December 2002 (Case R 494/1999-3), relating to opposition proceedings between Schuhpark Fascies GmbH and Leder & Schuh AG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Leder & Schuh AG Community trade mark sought: The word mark ‘JELLO SCHUHPARK’ for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28 – Application No 107367 Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Schuhpark Fascies GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘Schuhpark’ for goods in Class 25 Decision of the Opposition Division Dismissal of the applicant’s application for goods in Class 18. Dismissal of the opposition as to the remainder Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal brought by the applicant





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 13 June 2006 – Atlantean v Commission

(Case T-192/03)

Fishing – Multiannual guidance programmes – Request to increase the objectives on safety grounds – Decision 97/413/EC – Refusal of the Commission – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Competence of the Commission

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Decision 2003/245) (see paras 42-46, 49-53)

2. Fisheries – Common structural policy – Multiannual guidance programmes (Council Decision 97/413, Arts 4(2) and 9; Commission Decision 2003/245) (see paras 84-85, 87-89, 117)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), in so far as that decision rejects the request to increase the capacity of the vessel Atlantean .

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall in so far as it applies to the applicant’s vessel Atlantean;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 – Koninklijke Friesland Foods v Commission

(Case T-348/03)

State aid – Tax scheme of aid implemented by the Netherlands – International financing activities of groups of companies – Decision declaring the aid scheme to be incompatible with the common market – Transitional provision – Protection of legitimate expectations – Principle of equal treatment – Admissibility – Legal interest in bringing proceedings

1. Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Need for an actual and current interest (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 58, 72)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision declaring a State aid scheme imcompatible with the common market and making provision for a transitional scheme – Action brought by an undertaking excluded from the transitional scheme – Admissibility – Conditions (Arts 87(1) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 93-96, 100)

3. State aid – Compatibility of aid with the common market – Possible legitimate expectation of the persons concerned – Protection – Conditions and limits (Art. 88(2), first para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 7) (see paras 132-135)

4. State aid – Commission decision declaring a State aid scheme incompatible with the common market and making provision for a transitional scheme – No transitional measures in favour of operators who made an aid application which was still pending at the time the Commission adopted its decision to open the formal investigation procedure – Operators’ right to place a legitimate expectation in the granting of a reasonable transitional period (Art. 88(2), first para., EC) (see paras 138, 149-150)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities (OJ 2003 L 180, p. 52) in so far as it excludes from the transitional scheme those operators who, as at 11 July 2001, had lodged a request with the Netherlands tax authority for application of the aid scheme in question but whose request had not yet been determined by that date.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities in so far as it excludes from the transitional scheme which it lays down those operators who, as at 11 July 2001, had lodged a request with the Netherlands tax authority for application of the aid scheme in question but whose request had not yet been determined by that date;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2008 – Saint-Gobain Gyproc Belgium v Commission

(Case T-50/03)

Competition – Cartels – Plasterboard market – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Fine – Gravity and duration of the infringement – Attenuating circumstances

1. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 42-50, 57, 105-106)

2. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Need to take account of the turnovers of the undertakings concerned and to ensure that fines are proportional to those turnovers – None – Need to take account of the small size or undiversified nature of the business of the undertaking concerned – None (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 83-85, 88, 93-95)

3. 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 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, point 3) (see paras 119-121,124-125)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances – Termination of the infringement after the Commission’s intervention – Conditions (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, point 3) (see paras 133-136)

Re:

ACTION under Articles 229 EC and 230 EC for the reduction of the fine imposed on Gyproc by Commission Decision 2005/471/EC of 27 November 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] against BPB plc, Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux NV (Case No COMP/E‑1/37.152 – Plasterboard) (OJ 2005 L 166, p. 8)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(3) and (6)) (see paras 15-18, 44-47)

2. Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Compliance with rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see paras 28-30, 41-42)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2004 (Case R 97/2001-4) concerning registration of a mark in the form of a frosted white bottle as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 February 2004 (Case R 97/2001-4);

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid – Prohibitions – Exceptions – Aid to compensate for damage to agricultural production – Aid benefiting undertakings or activities in the processing sector and intended to compensate for damage caused by animal disease – Aid benefiting cheese-producing cooperatives – Excluded (Commission Communication 2000/C 28/02, para. 11) (see paras 46-49)

2. State aid – Investigation by the Commission – No observations from interested parties – No effect on the validity of the Commission’s decision – Obligation to consider of its own motion information which has not been expressly invoked – No such obligation (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 50-58, 70)

3. State aid – Investigation by the Commission – Investigation of an aid scheme taken in its entirety – Whether permissible – Choice made by the Commission in the exercise of its wide discretion to prohibit an aid scheme rather than to approve a scheme subject to the imposition of possible review measures to be taken by the national authorities in each specific case – Unlawful interference by the Commission in the review measures laid down under the national law governing the application of the aid scheme in question – None (see paras 59-61)

4. State aid – Commission decision finding non-notified aid to be incompatible with the common market – Duty to state reasons – Information required (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 63-64)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 471 final of 16 March 2004 concerning the aid scheme which Italy is planning to implement in favour of processing and marketing cooperatives in order to compensate the damage caused by ovine catarrhal fever (blue tongue) (Article 5 of Law No 22 of the Region of Sardinia of 17 November 2000)

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Rice – Public storage of rice (Commission Regulation No 708/98, Art. 6(1)) (see paras 46-54)

2. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Council Regulations Nos 729/70, as amended by Regulation No 2245/1999, Art. 5(2)(c), and 2201/96; Commission Regulations Nos 708/98 and 1663/95, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 74, 76-78, 96-101, 106-107, 136-137, 179-182)

3. Agriculture – EAGGF – Grant of aids and premiums (Commission Regulation No 3149/92, Art. 9) (see paras 138-142)

4. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Support to producers for the purpose of restructuring in the fruit and vegetable sector (Commission Regulation No 3816/92, Art. 2) (see paras 162-169)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 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 2004 L 202, p. 35), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure by the Hellenic Republic in the sectors of fruit and vegetables and public storage.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture – EAGGF – Granting of aid and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an efficient system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks (Commission Regulation No 504/97, Art. 15(1)) (see paras 81-83)

2. Acts of the Community institutions – Regulations – Regulation prescribing specific control measures (see para. 89)

3. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (see para. 102)

4. Community law – Principles – Force majeure (see para. 165)

5. Community law – Principles – Force majeure – Meaning (see para. 174-176, 178)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 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 2004 L 40, p. 31).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund in so far as it excludes from Community financing a sum of EUR 979 554.48 corresponding to an adjustment of the aid to Andalusian growers of certain citrus fruits in respect of the financial years 1998 to 2001;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the parties to bear 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 100

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2004 (Case R 22/2004-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Ontex NV and Curon Medical, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.