ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 paras 86-88, 91

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2004 (Case R 170/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between JC AB and Camper SL.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

3. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Actionable measures

–

Meaning

–

Measure producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Art. 7(1) and (2)) (see paras 31-35

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision supposedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 5 September 2005 in Case COMP/39.225 relating to the complaint lodged by Gerolf Annemans with the Commission under Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

2. Orders Gerolf Annemans to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Choice of legal basis – Criteria – Commission regulation for the recovery of the stock of hake (Council Regulation No 3760/92, Art. 15(1), and No 850/98, Art. 45(1); Commission Regulation No 494/2002) (see paras 21-26)

2. Fisheries – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Regulation No 850/98 (Council Regulation No 850/98, Art. 45(1)) (see para. 27)

3. Fisheries – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Commission regulation for the recovery of the stock of hake (Council Regulation No 850/98; Commission Regulation No 494/2002) (see paras 28-31)

4. Fisheries – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Commission regulation for the recovery of the stock of hake (Commission Regulation No 494/2002 Art. 2(2)) (see paras 43-45)

5. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 59-61)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 494/2002 of 19 March 2002 establishing additional technical measures for the recovery of the stock of hake in ICES sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and VII and ICES divisions VIII a, b, d, e (OJ 2002 L 77, p. 8)

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.
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 paras 50-51

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2005 (Case R 1068/2004‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Fujitsu Siemens Computers GmbH and Gateway, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Gateway, Inc., to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).
Case T-460/05

Bang & Olufsen A/S

v

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

‛Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a loudspeaker — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 10 October 2007 II-4209

Summary of the Judgment

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))

A three-dimensional mark consisting in a vertical, pencil-shaped column, with a long, rectangular panel attached to one side, the point of the ‘pencil’ joining to a flat base, registration of which is applied for in respect of ‘Electric and electronic apparatus and appliances for analogue, digital or optical reception, processing, reproduction, regulation or distribution of sound signals, loudspeakers’ and of ‘Music furniture’, falling respectively within Classes 9 and 20 of the Nice Agreement, is not devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, since this is not one of the customary shapes of the goods in the sector concerned or even a mere variant of those shapes, but a shape having a particular appearance which, having regard also to the aesthetic result of the whole, is such as to retain the attention of the public concerned, namely the average Community consumer displaying a particularly high level of attention when purchasing goods covered by the trade mark application, and to enable that public to distinguish those goods from those of another commercial origin.

In that regard, even if the existence of specific or original characteristics does not constitute an essential condition for registration, the fact remains that their presence may, on the other hand, confer the required degree of distinctiveness on a trade mark which would not otherwise have it.

(see paras 34, 39, 42, 43)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Common commercial policy

–

Protection against dumping

–

Review procedure

–

Modification of the definition of the product concerned by existing measures

–

Incorporation of the product concerned into new products

–

Applicability of existing measures to the new products

–

None

–

Need to open a new investigation (Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 1, 5, 11(3) and 13) (see paras 61-64, 66, 68-70

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2005 L 160, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96;

2. Orders the Council to bear its own costs and those incurred by JSC Kirovo‑Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 29-34, 41-50

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought by the Commission pursuant to Article 238 EC seeking to obtain reimbursement in the sum of EUR 31 965.28 which it paid in the context of the performance of contract IC18-CT98-0273, plus statutory interest.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Environmental Management Consultants Ltd to repay to the Commission of the European Communities the amount of EUR 31 965.28, plus interest:

– at the rate of 9.26% per annum from 1 to 31 August 2001;

– at the rate of 8.62% per annum from 1 September to 31 December 2001;

– at the rate of 10.57% per annum from 1 January to 30 June 2002;

– at the rate of 10.47% per annum from 1 July to 31 December 2002;

– at the rate of 9.97% per annum from 1 January to 30 June 2003;

– at the rate of 9.22% per annum from 1 July to 31 December 2003;

– at the rate of 9.14% per annum from 1 January to 30 June 2004;

– at the rate of 9.13% per annum from 1 July to 31 December 2004;

– at the rate of 9.21% per annum from 1 January to 31 January 2005;

– at the statutory rate, calculated in accordance with Article 288 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code) without that rate exceeding 9.21% from 1 February 2005 until the discharge of the debt;

2. Orders Environmental Management Consultants to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Contradiction – Effects (Art. 253 EC) (see para 67)

2. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Decision to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC (Art. 88(2) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 6(1) and (7)) (see paras 69-70)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision on State aid (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 78, 85)

4. State aid – Effect on trade between Member States – Adverse effect on competition – Aid of little importance in a sector with lively competition (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 153-156)

5. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Pleas that may be raised against a Commission decision on State aid (Arts 88(2) EC and 230 EC) (see paras 169-171)

6. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see paras 174-175, 179)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/638/EC of 6 September 2005 on the aid scheme implemented by Italy for certain undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities specialised in shares of small- and medium-capitalisation companies listed on regulated markets (OJ 2006 L 268, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 4 October 2006 – Monte di Massima v OHIM – Höfferle Internationale (Valle della Luna)

(Case T-96/05)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for figurative Community trade mark Valle della Luna – Earlier national figurative mark VALLE DE LA LUNA – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Article 15(2)(a), and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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, Arts 15(1) and 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 26-27)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 November 2004 (Case R 269/2004-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Monte di Massima SAS di Pruneddu Leonardo & C. and J.M. Höfferle Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Monte di Massima SAS di Pruneddu Leonardo & C. Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Valle della Luna for goods in Class 32 – Application No 2029726 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: J.M. Höfferle Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: German nominative mark VALLE DE LA LUNA for goods in Class 33 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 6 June 2007 – Mediocurso v Commission

(Joined Cases T-251/05 and T-425/05)

ESF – Training programmes – Reduction in the assistance originally granted – Statement of reasons – Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations – Absence of a manifest error of assessment

1. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 39-42)

2. Social policy – European Social Fund – Financial assistance for vocational training (Council Regulation No 2950/83, Arts 5(4) and 6(1); Council Decision 83/516, Art. 2(2); Commission Decision 83/673, Art. 7) (see paras 57-59, 61, 67)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of, first, Commission Decision C(2005) 1236 of 14 April 2005 reducing the assistance granted by Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989 and, secondly, Commission Decision C(2005) 3557 of 13 September 2005 reducing the assistance granted by Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989.

Operative part

The Court:

Joins Cases T-251/05 and T-425/05 for the purposes of the judgment;

Dismisses the actions;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 – Usinor v OHIM – Corus UK (GALVALLOY)

(Case T-189/05)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark GALVALLOY – Earlier national word mark GALVALLIA – 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 69, 71-72)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2005 (Case R 411/2004‑1) in respect of opposition proceedings between Usinor SA and Corus UK Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Corus UK Ltd Community trade mark sought: Word mark GALVALLOY for goods in Class 6 – Application No 796557 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Usinor SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark GALVALLIA for goods in Class 6 Decision of the Opposition Division: Refusal of registration Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division set aside





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 10 February 2005 (Case R 411/2004‑1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Usinor SA;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 27 November 2007 – Gateway v OHIM – Fujitsu Siemens Computers (ACTIVY Media Gateway)

(Case T-434/05)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark ACTIVY Media Gateway – Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks Gateway and GATEWAY – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Absence of similarity between the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(5) of Regulation 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50-51)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2005 (Case R 1068/2004‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Fujitsu Siemens Computers GmbH and Gateway, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Fujitsu Siemens Computers GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark ACTIVY Media Gateway for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38 and 42 – Application No 2190627 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Gateway, Inc. Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national word marks and figurative marks GATEWAY, GATEWAY 2000, GATEWAY.NET, GATEWAY PROFILE and GATEWAY ASTRO, for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37 and 38 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 12 November 2008 – Nalocebar v OHIM – Limiñana y Botella (Limoncello di Capri)

(Case T-210/05)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings –Application for figurative Community trade mark Limoncello di Capri – Earlier national word mark LIMONCHELO – 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 25-27, 51-53)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2005 (Case R 646/2004-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Limiñana y Botella, SL and Nalocebar – Consultores e Serviços Ld a .

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Big Ben Establishment Ltd. The applicant acquired the application for registration lodged by Big Ben Establishment Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Limoncello di Capri for goods in Classes 30, 32 and 33 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Limiñana y Botella, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark Limonchelo for goods in Class 33 Decision of the Opposition Division: Registration refused 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 10 September 2008 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-59/05)

Public service contracts – Community tendering procedure – Provision of development, maintenance and support services for the financial information systems of the Directorate-General for Agriculture – Selection and award criteria – Rejection of a submitted tender – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – No manifest error of assessment – Principles of diligence and sound administration

1. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Selection and award criteria (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 89 and 97(1); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 135 to 138) (see paras 48-51)

2. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Award of contracts – Award criteria (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 97(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 138) (see paras 56-59)

3. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see paras 70-71, 82)

4. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Award of contracts (see paras 101, 104-105)

5. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 120-122)

6. Community law – Principles – Principle of sound administration – Duty of diligence (see paras 152-153)

Re:

ANNULMENT of the decision of the Commission of 23 November 2004 rejecting the bid filed by the applicant in the tendering procedure for the provision of computer and related services linked to the information systems of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and of the decision of the Commission to award the contract to another bidder.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as unfounded;

2. Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and one fifth of those incurred by Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2009 – Spain v Commission

(Case T-369/05)

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Aids for restructuring and conversion in the wine sector – Aids for the improvement of the production and marketing of honey – Concept of loss of revenue due to implementation of the plan – Article 13(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 – Concept of intervention intended to stabilise the agricultural markets – Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999

1. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Management principles – Equal treatment of economic operators (Council Regulation No 1258/1999) (see para. 46)

2. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Expenses arising from a misapplication of Community law – EAGGF financing – Condition (Council Regulations Nos 1258/1999 and 1493/1999, Art. 13(1)(a)) (see paras 67-69)

3. Community law – Interpretation – Acts of the institutions (see paras 74, 101)

4. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (see para. 79)

5. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Application by analogy – Conditions (see paras 92-93)

Re:

APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2005/555/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 Kingdom of Spain in the wine and honey sectors.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2009 – Borax Europe v Commission

(Case T-166/05)

Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents and sound recordings – Refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual – Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process

European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 3 and 4(3)) (paras 40-42, 50, 88, 101-105, 108)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of 21 February 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing access to certain documents and sound recordings in connection with the 30th adaptation to technical progress of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967(I), p. 234).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of 21 February 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing Borax Europe Ltd access to the recordings of the meeting of 5 and 6 October 2004, to two drafts of the summary record of that meeting, to thirteen comments from experts, to two comments from industry representatives and to the document submitted by the Danish Rapporteur;