ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2006 –Torres v OHIM – Bodegas Muga (Torre Muga)

(Case T-247/03)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for figurative Community trade mark Torre Muga – Earlier national and international word marks TORRES – Likelihood of confusion – Breach of the rights of the defence

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. 71)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 April 2003 (Case R 998/2001‑1) concerning opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA, and Bodegas Muga, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bodega Muga, SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Torre Muga (Application No 791.004, for goods in Class 33) Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Miguel Torres, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: TORRES (an international mark, a Danish mark, a German mark, three Spanish marks and two United Kingdom marks) for goods in Class 33 Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 25 October 2007 – Ferriere Nord v Commission

(Case T-94/03)

Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Producers of reinforcing bars – Decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS – Decision based on the ECSC Treaty after expiry of that treaty – Lack of competence of the Commission

1. ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Commission decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of that treaty (Art. 65(1), (4) and (5) CS; Council Regulation No 17, Arts 3 and 15(2)) (see paras 58, 60, 75-76, 79)

2. ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Commission’s competence under Article 65(4) and (5) CS to establish and penalise an infringement of Article 65(1) CS – Disappearance on expiry of the ECSC Treaty (Arts 65(1), (4) and (5) CS and 97 CS; Art. 305(1) EC; Merger Treaty) (see paras 91-94, 96, 98)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002, relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 – Reinforcing bars).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 – Reinforcing bars) with regard to Ferriere Nord SpA;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ferriere Nord;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative mark Turkish Power and word mark POWER

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

Summary

There is no likelihood of confusion, as regards the German public, between the figurative sign made up of the two terms ‘Turkish’ and ‘power’ separated by a roaring lion’s head with an elaborate mane, in respect of which registration as a Community trade mark has been applied for regarding various goods including ‘tobacco, smokers’ articles and matches’ belonging to Class 34 of the Nice Agreement, and the word mark POWER, registered previously in Germany for ‘tobacco; smokers’ articles, … matches’ in the same class, since it is not evident that the element ‘power’, which is common to both signs, constitutes the dominant component of the sign sought nor that it determines the overall impression given by the latter to the point that there is a clear likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public, with the result that, having regard to the visual, phonetic and conceptual differences between the two conflicting signs, and in spite of the identical nature of the goods covered by them and the presence of that common verbal element, the relevant public which is circumspect, shows a high degree of care and is loyal towards its habitual marks, is not likely to believe that the goods in question come from the same undertaking or from economically-linked undertakings.

(see paras 49, 71-72)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

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

Summary

There is, for United Kingdom consumers, a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark between the figurative sign consisting of the device of a polo player and containing the verbal element ‘ROYAL COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE POLO CLUB’ the registration of which is sought for ‘bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, dentifrices; aftershave, preparations for hair, shampoo, deodorants, eau de toilette, body sprays, bath oils, bubble bath, shower gel’ in Class 3 of the Nice Agreement, and the figurative mark consisting of a polo player device registered earlier in the United Kingdom for ‘bath salts, talcum powder, face powder, face cream, scalp stimulating preparations, lotions for use after shaving, all being non-medicated toilet preparations; and lipstick, brilliantine, hair lotions, shampoos, dentifrices, soaps and perfumes’ in the same class of that agreement, given the partial identity or similarity of the goods, the visual and conceptual similarities between the signs, the enhanced distinctiveness, both inherent and through use, of the polo player device in the earlier trade mark and the existence of a family of trade marks belonging to the earlier mark’s proprietor linked to the concept of polo for goods in Class 3.

(see paras 44, 52)
Case T-439/04

Eurohypo AG

v

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

‛Community trade mark — Word mark EUROHYPO — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Examination of the facts by the Board of Appeal of its own motion — Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 — Admissibility of facts submitted for the first time before the Court of First Instance’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 3 May 2006 II-1271

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) and (c))

The word mark EUROHYPO, registration of which is sought in respect of the services ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs, financial services and financing’ in Class 36 of the Nice Agreement, is devoid of distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1) (b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark in so far as it is descriptive of those services. The average German-speaking consumer perceives the element ‘euro’, in the financial field, as the currency which is in circulation in the European Union and describes that monetary area. Moreover, in the context of financial services, the element ‘hypo’ is understood by that consumer as an abbreviation of ‘hypothek’ (mortgage). Thus each element designates, in at least one of its possible meanings, a characteristic of the financial services in question. Finally, first, EUROHYPO is a straightforward combination of two descriptive elements, which does not create an impression sufficiently far removed from that produced by the mere combination of the elements of which it is composed to amount to more than the sum of its parts. Secondly, it has not been shown that that compound word has become part of everyday language and acquired a meaning of its own.

(see paras 51, 52, 55, 57)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 133(2))

2. 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))

3. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

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

Summary

1. In appeal proceedings brought against a decision of a Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) ruling on opposition proceedings, nothing prevents the Office from endorsing a head of claim of the applicant’s or from simply leaving the decision to the discretion of the Court, while putting forward all the arguments that it considers appropriate for giving guidance to the Court. On the other hand, it may not seek an order annulling or altering the decision of the Board of Appeal on a point not raised in the application or put forward pleas in law not raised in the application.

(see para. 13)

2. The last sentence of Article 43(2) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark and Article 43(3), which applies Article 43(2) to earlier national marks, must be interpreted as meaning that if a trade mark has been registered for a category of goods or services which is sufficiently broad for it to be possible to identify within it a number of sub-categories capable of being viewed independently, proof that the mark has been put to genuine use in relation to a part of those goods or services affords protection, in opposition proceedings, only for the sub-category or sub-categories to which the goods or services for which the trade mark has actually been used belong. However, if a trade mark has been registered for goods or services defined so precisely and narrowly that it is not possible to make any significant sub-divisions within the category concerned, then the proof of genuine use of the mark for the goods or services necessarily covers the entire category for the purposes of the opposition.

(see paras 26-27)

3. For the French public, composed of medical professionals and patients, as the end consumers, there is a likelihood of confusion between the word sign GALZIN, in respect of which registration as a Community trade mark is sought for ‘pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of Wilson’s disease’ in Class 5 of the Nice Agreement and the word mark CALSYN, registered earlier in France for ‘pharmaceutical and medical preparations, more specifically calcium-based preparations’ in the same class. In terms of the overall impression, given the similarity of the goods concerned and the visual and phonetic similarities of the two marks, the apparent differences between the marks are not sufficient to eliminate the existence of a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public.

(see paras 65-66, 81)
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

–

Figurative mark including the word element ‘clean x’ and word and figurative marks CLEN (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 48

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2004 (Case R 652/2002-4) relating to opposition proceedings between RB Square Holdings Spain, SL and Unelko NV.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid

–

Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 60-78

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/177/EC of 19 May 2004 on State aid No C 4/2003 (ex NN 102/2002) implemented by Italy for WAM SpA (OJ 2006 L 63, p. 11).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2006/177/EC of 19 May 2004 on State aid No C 4/2003 (ex NN 102/2002) implemented by Italy for WAM SpA (OJ 2006 L 63, p. 11);

2. Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred, in Case T-304/04, by the Italian Republic and, in Case T-316/04, by Wam, including those relating to the interim proceedings.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 43-50)

2. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Decision concluding financial assistance (Council Regulation No 4253/88, as amended by Regulation No 2082/93, Art. 25(5)) (see paras 61-74)

Subject of the case

Re:

PRIMARILY, ANNULMENT of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 16 December 2003 concerning the closure of assistance ERDF 98.05.26.001, annulment of the Commission decisions reducing the assistance, withdrawing the assistance and recovering the balance of the assistance, and annulment of Article 6.2 of Commission Decision SEC (1999) 1316 of 9 September 1999 on guidelines for the financial closure of operational assistance (1994–1999) from the Structural Funds, and, in the alternative, compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant and performance of the agreement of 13 September 1999 between the applicant and the Commission.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

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

Summary

For the average Spanish consumer, there is a risk of confusion between the figurative mark ‘La Española’, registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought in respect of ‘edible oils and fats’ within Class 29 of the Nice Agreement, and the figurative mark Carbonell previously registered in Spain in respect of ‘pure olive oil’ and ‘olive oil’.

The similarity of the figurative elements of the conflicting trade marks, both as regards the colour schemes and the drawings is more significant than small differences which become apparent only after a detailed and thorough examination. There is, moreover, a conceptual link between the marks at issue which, although weak, is linked to the nature and origin of the goods protected. The elements common to the two marks at issue, seen as a whole, produce an overall visual impression of great similarity, since the La Española mark reproduces very precisely the essence of the message and the visual impression given by the Carbonell mark: the woman dressed in traditional clothes, seated in a certain manner, close to an olive branch with an olive grove in the background, the overall image consisting of an almost identical arrangement of spaces, colours, places for brand names and style of lettering. That likelihood of confusion is not diminished by the existence of the different word element since the word element of the mark applied for has a very weak distinctive character, given that it refers to the geographical origin of the goods.

(see paras 100-103, 105)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability

–

Conditions

–

Cumulative nature

–

Damage

–

Causal link

–

Burden of proof (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 33-34, 40-43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

CLAIM for compensation for loss allegedly caused by Commission Decision 2000/513/EC of 8 September 1999 on aid granted by France to the company Stardust Marine, represented by Denis Bouychou, as insolvency administrator.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as unfounded;

2. 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 95-96, 101

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 May 2004 (Case R 789/2002-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Link Interchange Network Ltd and Citigroup, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Citigroup, Inc. 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 43-44

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2003 (Case R 642/2000-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sun Microsystems, Inc. and Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd to pay the costs.
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(1))

2. Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Recruitment – Renewal of a fixed-term contract – Administration's discretion

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 8 and 47, first para.)

1. While it is true that it is usually from the date of its signature that a contract produces its effects and it is therefore from the date of signature that the period for lodging a complaint in due time in accordance with Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations must be calculated, a decision not to renew the contract of a member of the temporary staff constitutes a separate decision from the contract in question and may therefore be the subject of a complaint or even an appeal within the periods provided for in the Staff Regulations.

(see para. 21)

See: T‑137/99 and T‑18/00 Martinez Paramo and Others v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑119 and II‑639, para. 56

2. Although Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants makes it possible to renew a temporary staff contract, it is not an entitlement, but merely a possibility left to the discretion of the competent authority. The Community institutions have a wide discretion to organise their departments to suit the tasks entrusted to them and to assign the staff available to them in the light of such tasks on condition, however, that the staff are assigned in the interest of the service.

(see para. 30)

See: 176/82 Nebe v Commission [1983] ECR 2475, para. 18; 69/83 Lux v Court of Auditors [1984] ECR 2447, para. 17
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 1954/2003) (see paras 33-38)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Arts 230, fourth para., EC and 299(2) EC; Council Regulation No 1954/2003) (see paras 53-56)

3. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Measures of general scope – Need for natural or legal persons to have recourse to a plea of illegality or a reference for a preliminary ruling on validity (Arts 230, fourth para., EC, 234 EC and 241 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1367/2006; Council Regulation No 1954/2003) (see paras 92-93)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION seeking partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95 (OJ 2003 L 289, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Região autónoma dos Açores to bear its own costs and pay those of the Council, including those incurred in the interim proceedings;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission to bear their own costs, including those incurred in the interim proceedings;

4. Orders Seas at Risk VZW and WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature to bear their own costs, including those incurred in the interim proceedings;

5. Orders Stichting Greenpeace Council to bear its own costs incurred in the present proceedings;

6. Orders Porto de Abrigo – Organização de Produtores da Pesca CRL and GÊ-Questa – Associação de Defesa do Ambiente to bear their own costs incurred in the interim proceedings.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action by the recipient of State aid against a Commission decision declaring it compatible with the common market (Arts 230 EC, fourth para., and 233 EC) (see paras 63-72)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision on State aid (Arts 87 EC and 253 EC) (see paras 98-99, 101-103)

3. Commission – Principle of collegiality – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 107-108)

4. State aid – Existing aid and new aid – Definition (Art. 88(3) EC) (see paras 123-124, 126-127)

5. State aid – Existing aid and new aid – Payments in favour of shipping companies providing, in the context of public service contracts, regular services to and from islands (Art. 88(1) and (3) EC; Council Regulation No 3577/92, Art. 4(3)) (see paras 143-144)

6. Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Scope – Absolute authority of res judicata (see paras 159-160)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATIONS for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2005/163/EC of 16 March 2004 on the State aid paid by Italy to the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar shipping companies (Tirrenia Group) (OJ 2005 L 53, p. 29).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. In Cases T-265/04 and T-292/04, annuls Commission Decision 2005/163/EC of 16 March 2004 on the State aid paid by Italy to the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar shipping companies (Tirrenia Group);

2. In Case T-504/04, declares that the action has become devoid of purpose;

3. In Case T-265/04, orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA;

4. In Case T-292/04, orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Caremar SpA, Siremar SpA, Saremar SpA and Toremar SpA;

5. In Case T-504/04, orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Navigazione Libera del Golfo SpA;

6. In Case T-504/04, orders the Italian Republic and Caremar to bear their own costs.