ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. European Communities — Institutions — Public right of access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Limits on the right of access to documents — Non-disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without that State ' s prior agreement — (Art. 255 EC; Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 4(5))

2. European Communities — Institutions — Public right of access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Communication of documents originating from a Member State in the institution ' s possession — Letter of objection sent to the institution on behalf of a Member State — Determination of the competence of the letter ' s author — Institution ' s lack of competence — (Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 4(5))

Summary

1. It follows from Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents that, as regards access to documents originating from third parties in the possession of those institutions, a Member State ' s documents are subject to special treatment. That provision confers on each Member State the power to request the institutions not to disclose documents originating from that State without its prior agreement. It transposes Declaration No 35 annexed to the final act of Amsterdam, by which the principles and conditions regarding access to documents set out in Article 255 EC will allow a Member State to request the Commission or the Council not to communicate to third parties a document originating from that State without its prior agreement. The power thus conferred on Member States is explained by the fact that it is neither the object nor the effect of Regulation No 1049/2001 to amend national legislation on access to documents.

see paras 40-41

2. It is not for the Commission to rule on the division of competences by the institutional rules proper to each Member State. Therefore, where that institution is in possession of a document originating from a Member State and receives a letter of objection in accordance with Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents to the disclosure of that document, it is not obliged to determine the competence of the author of that letter to raise such an objection, but must only verify whether the letter in question is, prima facie, that of a Member State within the meaning of that provision.

see paras 46, 48
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements between undertakings – Definition – Joint intention as to the conduct to be adopted on the market – Included – Form of the expression of intentions – Not relevant

(Art. 81(1) EC)

Summary

In order for there to be an agreement within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC, it is sufficient that the undertakings in question should have expressed their joint intention to conduct themselves on the market in a specific way. As regards the form in which that common intention is expressed, it is sufficient for a stipulation to be the expression of the parties’ intention to behave on the market in accordance with its terms. It follows that the concept of an agreement within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC centres round the existence of a joint intention between at least two parties, the form in which it is manifested being unimportant so long as it constitutes the faithful expression of the parties’ intention.

(see paras 59-61)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Three-dimensional mark – Shape of a white and transparent bottle

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

Summary

A three-dimensional sign made up of the shape of a plastic bottle, shown standing upright on its stopper and consisting of a transparent body and a white stopper, the front and rear surfaces of the which incorporate a ‘V’ shape, which extends towards the front and meets the edges of the sides of the body, registration of which is sought for ‘soaps; washing and bleaching agents for laundry; perfumed flushing water conditioners; chemical preparations for cleaning porcelain, stones, woods, glass, metal and plastics’ and ‘plastic boxes for liquid, gel and paste agents’ within Classes 3 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, as the combination of those elements has a truly individual character and cannot be regarded as altogether common to all the products in question, thus conferring on the bottle a particular and unusual appearance which is likely to attract the attention of the relevant public and enable that public, once familiar with the shape of the packaging of the goods in question. That position is, moreover, supported by the registration of a three-dimensional mark having an identical shape in 11 of the 15 Member States which formed the Community at the time the application for registration was lodged.

(see paras 40, 47-48)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Notification – Notification by fax – Means of transmission which may involve any decision or communication of the Office – Notification by post – Obligation on the Office to serve by post in the case of decisions setting a period of time running – None

(Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 61(2), 62(1) and 65)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Notification – Irregularities in notification – Possibility for the Office to determine the legal effects of due notification – Formal requirements – None

(Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 68)

Summary

1. Rule 65 of Regulation No 2868/95, implementing Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, provides that the notification by fax carried out by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is to be effected by the transmission either of the original or a copy under Rule 61(1) of that regulation ‘of the document to be notified’. The general formulation implies that that mode of notification may be employed whatever the nature of the document to be notified. Transmission by fax may therefore involve any decision or communication of the Office.

In regard to notification by post, it is apparent from the wording of Rule 62(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, which covers the totality of documents notifiable by the Office, that the detailed rules laid down therein apply only where it has been decided that notification should be effected by post. It would be to render devoid of effect the other modes of notification laid down in Rule 61(2) of that regulation were the view to be taken that, save for notification by publication in the Community Trade Marks Bulletin, the Office is obliged to effect notification solely by post of decisions subject to a time-limit for appeal and of communications subject to some other time-limit.

(see paras 58, 60)

2. Under Rule 68 of Regulation No 2868/95, implementing Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, expressly entitled ‘Irregularities in notification’, where a document has reached the addressee, if the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is unable to prove that it has been duly notified, or if provisions relating to its notification have not been observed, the document is deemed to have been notified on the date established by the Office as the date of receipt.

That provision, taken as a whole, must be construed as affording to the Office the possibility of establishing the date on which a document reached its addressee, if it is not possible to prove due notification or the provisions relating to its notification have not been observed; OHIM must be entitled therefore to attach to that proof the legal effects of due notification. Since Rule 68 of Regulation No 2868/95 lays down no formalities for adducing that proof, it may be adduced by means of a fax provided that the conditions for the use of that method of transmission confer probative value on it.

(see paras 63-65)
Case T-169/02

Cervecería Modelo, SA de CV

v

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

(Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for a Community figurative mark representing a bottle of beer including the verbal element ‘negra modelo’ – Earlier national figurative mark Modelo – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), 15 February 2005

Summary of the Judgment

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Legality of the decision of a Board of Appeal adjudicating in opposition proceedings – Challenge in reliance on new elements of law or fact – Not permissible

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 63 and 74(1))

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 – Figurative marks NEGRA MODELO and Modelo

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

1. Under Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, the examination is to be restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought. It follows that, in relation to a relative ground for refusal of registration, elements of law and of fact which are pleaded before the Court without having previously been raised before the departments of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) cannot affect the legality of a decision of the Office’s Board of Appeal.

Consequently, in the context of the review of the legality of decisions of the Office’s Boards of Appeal, for which the Court has jurisdiction under Article 63 of Regulation No 40/94, those elements of fact and of law cannot be examined for the purpose of assessing the legality of the decision of the Board of Appeal and must therefore be declared inadmissible.

(see paras 22-23)

2. There is, for the average Portuguese consumer, a likelihood of confusion between the figurative sign representing a bottle of beer bearing various colours and including the verbal element ‘negra modelo’, registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought in respect of ‘Beer’ within class 32 within the meaning of the Nice arrangement, and the figurative mark ‘Modelo’, previously registered in Portugal for ‘syrups, beers, refreshing drinks and non-alcoholic beverages’ in the same class, in so far as the aural and conceptual identity between the dominant component ‘modelo’ of the mark proposed for registration and the earlier mark neutralises the visual differences deriving from the graphic particularities of the mark proposed for registration, so that those differences do not serve to dispel a likelihood of confusion. The identity of the good designated by the conflicting signs merely reinforces the similarity between them.

(see paras 40, 43, 46)
39

With regard to its interest in bringing proceedings, the applicant states that it is a majority publicly owned company constituted under Law No 142/90 and is therefore covered by the three-year income tax exemption. As regards the CDDPP loans, it observes that the contested decision does not specify their temporal scope. Indeed, the period over which the CDDPP loans had to be granted if they were to be regarded as incompatible with the common market is not specified. It is therefore difficult to know whether the applicant actually benefited from the loans. The contested decision thus gives rise to considerable legal uncertainty as regards the applicant. Moreover, the Italian authorities sent to the applicant a request for information for the purpose of recovering the aid relating to the CDDPP loans. The applicant therefore considers that it has an interest in bringing proceedings. It states in its reply that it is willing to withdraw its application in so far as it relates to the CDDPP loans provided that the Commission expressly confirms that the contested decision is directed only at CDDPP loans granted between 1994 and 1998. In that case, the applicant requests that, for the purposes of apportioning the costs, account should be taken of the uncertainty arising from the contested decision as regards the CDDPP loans.
Keywords

Summary



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 – Word sign ‘BIOKNOWLEDGE’

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

Summary

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)
Keywords

Summary



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 – Word mark MunichFinancialServices

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

Summary

The word mark MunichFinancialServices, for which registration is sought for ‘financial services’ in Class 36 of the Nice Agreement, is descriptive of the services referred to in the Community trade mark application, for the purpose of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94, from the point of view of the average English-speaking consumer, together with average consumers in other linguistic regions of the Community – in particular German consumers – who have at least a basic knowledge of English, since the relevant public will have no difficulty in perceiving the element ‘FinancialServices’ in the mark applied for as a perfect description in English of the financial services referred to in the trade mark application concerned and as there is nothing to suggest that the addition of the word ‘Munich’ to the expression ‘FinancialServices’ confers on the mark applied for an additional element as a result of which it loses its character as purely descriptive of financial services offered from Munich.

(see paras 27, 29, 38, 43)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of Community law

(Art. 288, second para., EC)

Summary

For the Community to incur non-contractual liability within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, a series of conditions must be met, namely the conduct of which the institutions are accused must have been unlawful, the damage must be real and a causal connection must exist between that conduct and the damage in question.

The fact that the unlawfulness of the conduct of the institution has been established by a judgment of the Community judicature is not however sufficient to justify the conclusion that the first condition has been satisfied. A sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals must be established.

The decisive test for finding that there has been a sufficiently serious breach of Community law is whether the Community institution concerned manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on its discretion. Where that institution has only a considerably reduced, or no, discretion, the mere infringement of Community law may be sufficient to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach. However, it is also necessary to take account of the complexity of the situations to be regulated, the difficulties in the application or interpretation of the legislation, the clarity and precision of the rule infringed, and whether the error of law made was inexcusable or intentional.

(see paras 59, 61-62, 79-81, 87)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Arts 88(2) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 40-47, 49, 51, 54-56)

2. Acts of the Community institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 78-79, 92)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2003/293/EC of 11 December 2002 on the measures implemented by Spain in the agricultural sector following the increase in fuel prices (OJ 2003 L 111, p. 24)

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/293/EC of 11 December 2002 on the measures implemented by Spain in the agricultural sector following the increase in fuel prices is annulled in so far that it finds that the measures to support agricultural cooperatives provided for by Royal Decree Law 10/2000 de medidas urgentes de apoyo a los sectores agrario, pesquero y del transporte (Decree Law on emergency support for agriculture, fisheries and transport) do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC;

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

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
Keywords



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 marks ‘RIGHT GUARD XTREME sport’ and ‘WILKINSON SWORD XTREME III’ (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 81-82

)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 25 October 2007 – Riva Acciaio v Commission

(Case T-45/03)

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 55, 57, 72-73, 77)

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 89-92, 94, 96)

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 Riva Acciaio SpA;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Riva Acciaio;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 26 November 2008 – Agraz and Others v Commission

(Case T-285/03)

Non-contractual liability – Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products – Production aid for processed tomato products – Method of calculating the amount – 2000/01 marketing year – Determination of the loss

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Actual and certain damage – Burden of proof (Art. 288 EC) (see para. 49)

2. Non-contractual liability – Damage – Compensation – Account taken of inflation – Compensatory interest – Rules for calculation (Art. 288 EC) (see paras 50-51)

Re:

ACTION for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as the result of the method used to calculate the amount of production aid under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1519/2000 of 12 July 2000 setting for the 2000/01 marketing year the minimum price and the amount of production aid for processed tomato products (OJ 2000 L 174, p. 29).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders the Commission to pay to Agraz SA and the 86 other companies listed in Annexes I and II damages equivalent to an increase of 15.54% in the amount of production aid which they received for the 2000/01 marketing year, as set by Annex II to Regulation No 1519/2000;

2. Orders those damages to be reassessed using compensatory interest as from the time of actual payment of the aid to each applicant up to the date of delivery of the present judgment, at the rate fixed by the ECB for principal refinancing operations, plus two points, in respect of the applicants listed in Annex I, and at the rate of annual inflation determined for the period in question by Eurostat in the Member State where they are established, in respect of the applicants listed in Annex II;

3. Orders that the damages, as reassessed, be accompanied by default interest, as from the date of delivery of the present judgment until complete payment, at the rate set by the ECB for principal refinancing operations, plus two points;

4. Orders Agraz and the 86 other companies listed in Annexes I and II to bear two fifths of their own costs, before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice;
It is clear from Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark that the likelihood of confusion presupposes both that the mark applied for and the earlier mark are identical or similar, and that the goods or services covered by the application for registration are identical or similar to those in respect of which the earlier mark is registered. Those conditions are cumulative. Therefore, if the signs at issue are completely different it is possible in principle, without examining the goods in question, to take the view that there is no likelihood of confusion. However, where the marks are not clearly dissimilar, but have a number of similar factors together with certain components capable of distinguishing them, the assessment of the respective importance of those components must not be carried out in isolation, but in an overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion, taking account of all the relevant factors, in particular the interdependence between similarity of the signs and similarity of the goods or services designated.

(see paras 26-27, 29, 39)