ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope for legislative measures — Commission regulation prohibiting the fishing of red tuna by purse seiners flying the French or Greek flag — Included — Act not containing implementing measures within the meaning of that provision of the Treaty (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 1224/2009, Art. 36(2); Commission Regulation No 498/2010) (see paras 17-22)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action against a Commission regulation prohibiting the fishing of red tuna by purse seiners flying the French or Greek flag — Quota allocated to those seiners not exhausted on the day of the closure of red tuna fishing — Substantial reduction of the quota initially allocated by reason of that closure — Interest in bringing proceedings maintained — Admissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Regulation No 498/2010) (see paras 24-29)

3. Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea — Measures prohibiting the fishing of red tuna by purse seiners flying the French or Greek flag — Discrimination arising from the early halting of fishing on the same date for Greek, Spanish and French seiners and from the adoption of prohibition measures on different dates — Treatment based on the actual capacity of seiners to capture red tuna and on a calculation of fishing for red tuna despite the adoption of measures on different dates — Same date of prohibition of fishing for red tuna despite the adoption of measures on different rates — Principle of non-discrimination — No infringement (Commission Regulations No 498/2010 and No 508/2010) (see paras 32, 33, 38-45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 54, 57-60)

4. Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea — Measures prohibiting the fishing of red tuna by purse seiners flying the French or Greek flag — Principle of proportionality — Breach of the limits of the wide discretion of the EU legislature — Judicial review — Limits (Council Regulation No 1224/2009; Commission Regulation No 498/2010) (see paras 63-66)

5. Actions for annulment — Contested act — Assessment of lawfulness — Criteria (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 70)

Subject of the case

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Regulation (EU) No 498/2010 of 9 June 2010 prohibiting fishing activities for purse seiners flying the flag of France or Greece or registered in France or Greece, fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45°W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2010 L 142, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bloufin Touna Ellas Naftiki Etaireia, Chrisderic and André Sébastien Fortassier to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 April 2011 – Air France v OHIM (Shape of a parallelogram)

(Case T-159/10)

Community trade mark – Application for Community figurative mark representing the shape of a parallelogram – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Distinctive character not acquired through use (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 30, 35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 January 2010 (Case R 1018/2009-2) concerning an application for registration of a sign representing a parallelogram as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Société Air France Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark, representing the shape of a parallelogram, for goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 28, 35 to 39 and 41 to 45 – Application No 7576218 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 General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2011 – K‑Mail Order v OHIM – IVKO (MEN’Z)

(Case T-279/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark MEN’Z – Prior trade name WENZ – Relative ground for refusal – Local range of the earlier sign – Article 8(4) and Article 41(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade – Local range of the sign (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 23, 29-30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 March 2010 (Case R 746/2009‑1) concerning opposition proceedings between Wenz GmbH and IVKO Industrieprodukt-Vertriebskontakt GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1.Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 May 2011 – Longevity Health Products v OHIM – Tecnifar (E-PLEX)

(Case T-161/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark E-PLEX – Earlier national word mark EPILEX – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39, 43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 February 2010 (Case R 662/2009‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tecnifar – Industria Tecnica Farmaceutica, SA and Longevity Health Products, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Longevity Health Products, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark E‑PLEX for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 – Application No 5126909 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Tecnifar – Industria Tecnica Farmaceutica, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese trade mark registration of the word mark EPILEX for goods in Class 5 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal partially dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2011 – Intermark v OHIM – Natex International (NATY'S)

(Case T-72/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark NATY’S – Earlier Community figurative mark Naty – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of goods – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Partial rejection of opposition

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 38, 40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2009 (Case R 953/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Intermark Srl and Natex International Trade SpA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2011 – Industrias Francisco Ivars v OHIM – Motive (Mechanical speed reducer)

(Case T-246/10)

Community designs – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a mechanical speed reducer – Earlier Community design – Ground of invalidity – No individual character – No different overall impression – Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002

Community designs – Ground for invalidity – No individual character – Design not producing on the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the previous design – Representation of a mechanical speed reducer (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 21-22, 24-26, 28)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 March 2010 (Case R 1337/2008-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Motive Srl and Industrias Francisco Ivars, SL.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 December 2011 – Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 v OHIM – Parfums Givenchy (only givenchy)

(Case T-586/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark ‘only givenchy’ – Earlier Community and national word marks ONLY – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23-24, 35-37, 48, 53)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2010 (Case R 1556/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 and Parfums Givenchy SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2011 – CTG Luxembourg PSF v Court of Justice

(Joined Cases T-170/10 and T-340/10)

Public service contracts – Procurement procedure – Provision of support services to IT systems users – Rejection of a tenderer’s bid because it was lodged out of time – Award of contract to another tenderer – Action for annulment – Non-contractual liability

1. European Union public contracts – Tender procedure – Fixing of a time-limit for the lodging and sending of tenders – Lawfulness – No duty to specify the relevant time zone (Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 130(2)(a) and 145(3), first para.) (see paras 26-35)

2. European Union public contracts – Tender procedure – Time-limits for access to documents calling for tenders – Obligation to supply potential tenderers with the additional information requested – Limits (Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 141(2)) (see paras 39-42)

3. European Union public contracts – Tender procedure – Decision to reject a tender – Duty to state reasons – Scope (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(2) and (3)) (see paras 46-47, 49)

4. European Union public contracts – Tender procedure – Irregularity of the administrative procedure – Effects – Annulment of the contested decision – Conditions (see para. 51)

Re:

APPLICATIONS (i) for annulment, first, of the decision of the Court of Justice of 9 February 2010 to reject the tender submitted by the consortium of which the applicant is a member in the context of procurement procedure reference AO 008/2009 entitled ‘1 st and 2 nd level support for the users of IT and telephone systems, call centre, end user hardware management’ and, secondly, of the decision of 5 March 2010 confirming the rejection and, thirdly, the decision to award the contract to another tenderer, and (ii) for compensation for the loss allegedly incurred by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the applications;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 – France v Commission

(Case T-488/10)

ERDF – Reduction of financial contribution – Community structural assistance in Martinique – Action for annulment – Public contracts – Directive 93/37/EEC – Concept of ‘direct subsidy’ – Concept of sports, recreation and leisure facilities – Duty to state reasons – Principle of proportionality

1. State aid – Concept – Intervention having effect of relieving burdens on an undertaking – Relevance to the interpretation of ‘subsidy’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 93/37 (Art. 107(1) TFEU; Council Directive 93/37, Art. 2(1)) (see paras 25-33)

2. Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public works contracts – Directive 93/37 – Purpose – Effectiveness (Council Directive 93/37) (see paras 59-65)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision reducing the amount of Community financial assistance (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Directive 93/37, Art. 2(2)) (see paras 68-71)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of European Commission Decision No C(2010) 5229 of 28 July 2010 concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming document for objective 1 for Community structural assistance in Martinique, France.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2012 — Cortés del Valle López v OHIM (¡Que buenu ye! HIJOPUTA)

(Case T-417/10)

Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark ¡Que buenu ye! HIJOPUTA — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(f)) (see paras 13-14, 18, 29)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2010 (Case R 175/2010‑2) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the figurative sign ¡Que buenu ye! HIJOPUTA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 June 2012 —

Seikoh Giken v OHIM — Seiko Holdings (SG SEIKOH GIKEN)



(Case T-519/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration — Application for territorial extension of the protection — Figurative mark SG SEIKOH GIKEN — Earlier Community word mark SEIKO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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 SG SEIKOH GIKEN and verbal mark SEIKO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 40)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 August 2010 (Case R 1553/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Seiko Holdings Kabushiki Kaisha and Kabushiki Kaisha Seikoh Giken.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 25 May 2012 —

Nike International v OHIM — Intermar Simanto Nahmias (JUMPMAN)





(Case T‑233/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark JUMPMAN — Earlier national word mark JUMP — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 24, 50-56)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2010 (Case R 738/2009-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Intermar Simanto Nahmias and Nike International Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 June 2012 —

Spain v Commission



(Cases T-264/10 and T-266/10)

Cohesion Fund and ERDF operational programme managed by Spain (ESF Combating discrimination 2007-2013 operational programme) — Interim payment application — Decision to suspend the payment deadline because of a significant deficiency in the operation of management and control systems — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Decision to interrupt the period for settlement of an interim payment application — Measure constituting the final conclusion of a distinct special procedure — Included (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1083/2006) (see paras 10-13, 20)

2. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — EU financing — Regulation No 1083/2006 — Interim payment — Application for payment fulfilling the conditions mentioned in Article 86 — Two-month period for making the interim payment as from the registration of such an application — Interruption of payment after expiry of the period — Not included (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Arts 87(2), and 91(1)) (see paras 33-36)

Re:

ACTIONS brought against the Commission decisions of 10 May (T-264/10) and 11 May 2010 (T-266/10) informing the Spanish authorities of the suspension of the deadline for the settlement of certain interim payment applications submitted by the Kingdom of Spain.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-264/10 and T-266/10 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Annuls the Commission decisions of 10 May and 11 May 2010 informing the Spanish authorities of the suspension of the deadline for the settlement of certain interim payment applications submitted by the Kingdom of Spain;

3. Rejects the application for acknowledgment that the application for payment of interest for late payment is well founded;

4. Declares that that there is no need to adjudicate on the head of claim that the General Court order a measure of organisation of procedure based on Article 64 of its Rules of Procedure;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2012 — MIP Metro v OHIM — J.C. Ribeiro (MISS B)

(Case T-485/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MISS B — Earlier national word mark miss H — Earlier international word mark Miss H — Earlier national and international figurative marks Miss H. — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

1. 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-21, 48)

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 — Word mark MISS B — Word marks miss H and Miss H and figurative marks Miss H. (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23, 47, 49)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 25)

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 — Possibility of a similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 26)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Elements of a trade mark having a descriptive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 27)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2010 (Case R 1526/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and J.C. Ribeiro, SGPS, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by OHIM;
128

In the present case, it is to be noted that all addressees of the contested decision were subject to multipliers for the ‘gravity of the infringement’ and the ‘additional amount’ of 15%, even though, unlike the undertakings which participated in the single infringement covering the three product sub-groups in six Member States, the applicant, like four other Italian undertakings penalised in Article 1(5) of the contested decision, could be held liable only for the Italian aspect of the infringement found. The gravity of the infringement in which the applicant participated was therefore less significant — in terms of both its geographic scope and the products covered by it — than that of the infringement committed by the other addressees of the contested decision which participated in a single infringement covering six Member States and relating to three product sub-groups. However, even if the Commission, when establishing those multipliers, should have treated the undertakings which participated in the single infringement covering six Member States and relating to three product sub-groups differently from those which participated in a single infringement covering only one territory and relating to two product sub-groups, the fact remains that such different treatment would have been of no benefit to the applicant. As stated in paragraph 121 above, the multipliers for the ‘gravity of the infringement’ and the ‘additional amount’ of 15% applied to the applicant are proportionate to the gravity of the infringement it committed. The lack of differential treatment between the undertakings to which the contested decision was addressed has therefore not been to the detriment of the applicant.