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

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 26

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 (Case R 1429/2007‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Coin SpA and Dynamiki Zoi AE.

Information relating to the case

>lt>8

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 April 2008 (Case R 1429/2007‑1);

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Application for compensation for damage allegedly caused by a Community institution – No brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 20-28)

2. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see para. 36)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission decision of 29 October 2008 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in a tendering procedure relating to the implementation of a programme for the creation of land use models, and also a claim for damages for the losses incurred by the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders Proges – Progetti di sviluppo Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character

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

Summary

A sign consisting of an orange colouring of the toe of a sock, in respect of which registration is sought for ‘Clothing, namely hosiery, socks and stockings’ in Class 25 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. By reason of the absence of any significant divergence from the norms or customs of the hosiery sector, the mark applied for would be perceived by the relevant public, consisting of all end consumers which have a low degree of attentiveness, as a decorative element.

(see paras 41, 45, 59)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Procedural provisions

–

Restitutio in integrum (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 78(1); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 77) (see paras 58-63

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of 26 August 2008 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 829/2008-2) concerning the applicant’s application for restitutio in integrum.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Toqueville Srl 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 39, 76-81

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2008 (Case R 1695/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Marqués de Murrieta, SA and Villa Almè Azienda vitivinicola di Vizzotto Giuseppe.

Information relating to the case

>lt>20

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Villa Almè Azienda vitivinicola di Vizzotto Giuseppe to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see. para. 28)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision, in the procedure for awarding a public services contract, to reject a tender – Assessment having regards to information at the applicant’s disposal at the time the action was brought (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149) (see paras 37-39, 43-46)

3. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons – Manifest error of assessment (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 51)

4. Actions for damages – Independent of actions for annulment – Limits – Identical pleas serving as the basis for both actions (Art. 288 EC) (see paras 84-86)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the Commission’s decision of 30 October 2008 rejecting the applicant’s bid for lot No 4 ‘Provision of teams of interpreters according to the linguistic requirements of each event’ of contract notice VT/2008/036 (Multiple framework contracts for meeting and conference organisation services), and the Commission’s decision of 17 November 2008 appointing the successful tenderer of lot No 4, and an application for a declaration that the Commission be ordered to pay damages in the event that the General Court does not grant the application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s bid.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Carpent Languages SPRL to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Challenge by the Member State concerned – Burden of proof – Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (Council Regulation No 729/70) (see paras 17, 39)

2. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Principles – Disallowance of irregular expenses – Finding of failures in the control system implemented by a Member State (Council Regulation No 729/70) (see paras 43-47)

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Accounts clearance procedure – Purpose – Financial correction not constituting a penalty (see para. 48)

4. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Principles – Disallowance of expenses in connection with practices incompatible with Community law – Margin of discretion of the Commission – None (Council Regulation No 729/70, Arts 2 and 3) (see para. 49)

5. Agriculture – EAGGF – Grant of aids and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an efficient system of administrative controls and spot checks (see para. 77)

6. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 114)

7. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Raw tobacco – System of individual production quotas restablished by Regulation No 2075/92 (Council Regulation No 2075/92, as amended by Regulation No 1636/98, Art. 9; Commission Regulation No 2848/98, Arts 9 and 22) (see paras 116-119)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/68/EC of 20 December 2007 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 2008 L 18, p. 12), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic in the sectors of products processed from fruit and vegetables, beef and veal and raw tobacco.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 33-34

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 June 2008 (Case R 845/2007‑1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign executive edition as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Interpretation having regard to the rationale of Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see para. 24)

2. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 25-27)

3. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Application of the criteria to the case in question (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see para. 28)

4. 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Complex mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44, 51, 56, 64)

5. 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 47-48, 67)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2008 (Case R 952/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Illinois Tools Works, Inc. and Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 June 2008 (Case R 952/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Illinois Tools Works, Inc. and Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG);

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(b) to (d) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 32-35, 59-65, 78-79)

2. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Applicant in bad faith at the time of lodging the trade mark application (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 51(1)(b)) (see paras 89-93)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2008 (Case R 1012/2007-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Psytech International Ltd and the Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Psytech International Ltd to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

–

Possibility of being individually concerned by a general decision

–

Conditions

–

Commission regulation designed to establish the rules for applying the work programme for examining all existing active substances

–

Action brought by procducers of active substances

–

Not individually concerned

–

Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 1451/2007) (see paras 34-38, 44-46, 49-50

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Article 3(2), Article 4, Article 7(3), the second subparagraph of Article 14(2), Article 15(3), Article 17 of and Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 2007, L 325, p. 3).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders Arch Chemicals, Inc., Arch Timber Protection Ltd, Rhodia UK Ltd, Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc and Troy Chemical Co. BV to bear their own costs;

4. Orders the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) to bear its own costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 24-25)

2. Union law – Principles – Rights of defence – Whether applicable to administrative procedures initiated by the Commission – Compliance when communicating the results of checks carried out in the context of managing the EAGGF – Scope (Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 45-47)

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Grant of aids and subsidies – Obligation on Member States to organise an efficient system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks – Implied obligation – Scope (Council Regulations No 2392/86, Art. 4(4), and No 1493/1999, Art. 2(1); Commission Regulation No 2729/2000, Art. 5(2)) (see paras 77-78)

4. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Challenge by the Member State concerned – Burden of proof – Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (see paras 79, 104-105, 114, 122)
European Union law does not preclude resumption of the procedure for the clearance of accounts where there has been an annulment of the decision reached by the Commission at the end of that procedure excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). The fifth subparagraph of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 on the financing of the common agricultural policy cannot prevent resumption of the procedure for the clearance of accounts, since, after the annulment of that decision, the new financial correction applied by the Commission also concerns expenditure incurred during the 24 months which preceded communication to the Member State in question of the results of the checks.

The interpretation which the Court of Justice gives to a rule of European Union law clarifies and defines, where necessary, the meaning and scope of that rule as it must be or ought to have been understood and applied from the time of its coming into force. It follows that the rule as thus interpreted may, and must, be applied even to legal relationships arising and established before the judgment. A Member State cannot therefore rely on the fact that a judgment in which the Court interpreted Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95, laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, was delivered before an action was brought by that Member State in another case in order to justify the fact that it was not entitled to raise a complaint based on that interpretation in that action. By not raising that complaint in the proceedings which gave rise to the annulling judgment in that case, although it had the opportunity to do so, the Member State deprived itself of any option to raise it subsequently once the time-limit for bringing proceedings had expired. Therefore, to allow the Member State to raise a complaint concerning a step in the procedure that was not affected by the annulment of a decision in order to challenge a later decision adopted at the end of the procedure which, in part, was the same as that at the end of which the annulled decision had been adopted, although there was nothing to prevent it from raising it before the Court in the proceedings which gave rise to the annulling judgment, would amount to allowing it to infringe the time-limit for bringing proceedings against the annulled decision.

(see paras 48-50, 52, 53)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Review of legality — Criteria — Account taken only of the factual and legal elements existing at the date on which the contested measure was adopted (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 70)

2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement borne by the Commission — Extent of the burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 83, 130)

3. Union law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Presumption of innocence — Procedures in competition matters — Decision finding an infringement but not imposing a fine — Applicability (Art. 81(1) EC; Art. 6(2) EU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48(1)) (see paras 84-88)

4. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Means of proof — Reliance on a body of evidence — Degree of evidential value necessary as regards items of evidence viewed in isolation — Evidence based solely on the conduct of undertakings — Evidential obligations of undertakings disputing the reality of the infringement — Obligations of the Commission challenging the plausibility of the explanations proposed by the undertakings (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 89-93, 99, 153)

5. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Agreements which continue to produce their effects after they have formally ceased to be in force — Application of Article 81 EC (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 115)

6. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Concerted practice — Parallel conduct — Presumption that a concertation exists — Limits — Refusal by national copyright management societies to allow a user established in another Member State direct access to their repertoire — Adverse effect on competition (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 129)

7. Actions for annulment — Judicial review — Limits on jurisdiction (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 175)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Združenje skladateljev, avtorjev in založnikov za zaščito avtorskih pravic Slovenije (SAZAS);

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Judicial proceedings — Interpretation of a judgment — Conditions for the admissibility thereof

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 129)

2. Judicial proceedings — Interpretation of a judgment — Application by an intervener — Lawfulness

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 43 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 129)

Summary

1. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 6)

2. An intervener must be allowed to submit an application for interpretation even if the party which it supports has not done so.

(see para. 7)
In competition matters, the basic amount of the fine calculated in accordance with the guidelines for calculating fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2203, on the basis of the value of sales during the reference period, multiplied by the duration coefficient, gives an appropriate replacement value, reflecting the economic reality for the entire duration of the infringement, only if the component which constitutes its starting point — the value of sales — is at least approximately representative of the entire duration of the infringement.

Admittedly, the Commission’s margin of assessment when calculating the amount of the fine allows it, under normal circumstances, to take into account the last year of participation in the infringement as the reference period. Such a general approach is justified, since that margin of assessment allows the Commission to disregard any fluctuation in the value of sales during the years of the infringement, and since an increase in the value of sales may be the result of the cartel itself.

However, where a merger has taken place during the course of a cartel in which only one of the parties participated before the merger, the value of the sales, during the last full year, of the entity resulting from the merger, multiplied by the number of years of the participation not only of that entity but also of the party which participated alone in the cartel before the merger, cannot constitute an ‘appropriate proxy to reflect the economic importance of the infringement as well as the relative weight of each undertaking in the infringement’ for the entire duration of the participation. By multiplying the value of sales of the entity resulting from the merger also by the number of years in which only one of the parties to the merger participated in the infringement, the Commission artificially increases the basic amount of the fine in a manner which does not reflect the economic reality during the years preceding the merger. It thereby infringes Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 and the principle of proportionality.

(see paras 110-114)