ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases T-146/02 to T-153/02





Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG

v

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





«(Community trade mark – Three-dimensional mark – Form of drinks packaging – Stand-up pouch – Absolute grounds for refusal – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Need to preserve a sign's availability)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 28 January 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Risk of a monopoly being created in a sign – No exclusive link with a specific ground for refusal

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

2.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Signs devoid of any distinctive character – Three-dimensional mark consisting of the get-up of the product – Interest in that get-up remaining available – Effect

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

3.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Signs capable of constituting a mark – Packaging of the product concerned – Vital for the sale of liquid products – Distinctive character – Requirement – Sign to be immediately perceived by the consumer as an indication of commercial origin

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

4.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Signs devoid of any distinctive character – Three-dimensional mark – Shape of drinks packaging – Standard appearance

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

1.

2.

3.

4.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

26 November 2003

((Community trade mark – Word mark ROBOTUNITS – Absolute grounds for refusal – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Descriptive character)) In Case T-222/02, HERON Robotunits GmbH, established in Lustenau (Austria), represented by M. Bergermann and R. Hackbarth, lawyers, applicant, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by S. Bonne and G. Schneider, acting as Agents, defendant, ACTION against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 May 2002 (Case R 1095/2000-1) refusing to register the word mark ROBOTUNITS as a Community trade mark,



THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fourth Chamber),



composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges, Registrar: J. Plingers, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 9 July 2003,

gives the following

Judgment

Background to the dispute

1

2

3

─ Profiles of metal, guide rails of metal, shaped static elements, shaped connecting elements, within Class 6;

─ Guides for machines, straight-line and longitudinal guides, pressure cylinders, linear cylinders with various types of drive system, shaped pneumatic elements, within Class 7;

─ Conveyor belts, striking systems with position controls, within Class 9.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

─ annul the contested decision;

─ order the defendant to pay the costs.

11

─ dismiss the action;

─ order the applicant to pay the costs.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber),

1.

2.

Tiili Mengozzi Vilaras

H. Jung V. Tiili
Case T-270/02

MLP Finanzdienstleistungen AG

v

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

(Community trade mark – Word mark ‘bestpartner’ – Absolute grounds for refusing registration – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Mark devoid of distinctive character – Descriptive mark)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 8 July 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature –Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Pleas in law not set out in the application – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1), 130(1), and 132(1))

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Mark ‘bestpartner’

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

1. Under Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, which is applicable in intellectual property matters by virtue of Article 130(1) and Article 132(1) of those rules, although specific points in the body of the application can be supported and completed by references to specific passages in the documents attached, a general reference to other documents cannot compensate for the lack of essential information in the application itself which, under the aforementioned provisions, must be contained in the application itself. Accordingly, an application, in so far as it refers to documents filed by the applicant before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), is inadmissible because the general reference contained therein is not linked to a plea developed in the application.

(see para. 16)

2. With regard to the English-speaking public in the Community, the term ‘bestpartner’, for which registration is sought for insurance, financial and Internet data-processing services in Classes 36, 38 and 42 of the Nice Agreement, is devoid of the minimum degree of distinctive character required by Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. The terms ‘best’ and ‘partner’ are generic words which simply denote the quality of services supplied by an undertaking to its clients and the fact of coupling the two terms together without any graphic or semantic modification does not imbue them with any additional characteristic such as to render the sign, taken as a whole, capable for the relevant public of distinguishing the applicant’s services from those of other undertakings.

(see paras 24, 26-27)
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 marks CM and CAPITAL MARKETS CM

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

Summary

For the relevant public, composed of Spanish consumers who are very attentive and well-informed, there is no likelihood of confusion between a figurative sign consisting of a red square crossed through with a yellow line inside which the letters ‘C’ and ‘M’ are written in white, for which registration as a Community trade mark is sought for the goods and services in Classes 1 to 42 of the Nice Agreement, and the figurative mark composed of two elements: the expression ‘capital markets’ written in black cursive script with the letters ‘C’ and ‘M’ placed one on top of the other, previously registered in Spain for ‘business management, business administration, office functions’, ‘insurance, financial affairs, monetary affairs, banking business, real estate’, ‘telecommunications’ and ‘legal services and scientific and industrial research’ in Classes 35, 36, 38 and 42 respectively, in so far as, on the one hand the services covered by the marks at issue are identical but as the marks are not either visually or conceptually similar those differences are capable of counteracting the phonetic similarity between them, and on the other the earlier mark does not have a highly distinctive character. That conclusion is supported by the fact that the relevant public is highly specialised in the sphere of the services concerned and, therefore, likely to demonstrate a high degree of attention when choosing those services.

(see paras 64-67, 69)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Inadequate statement of reasons – To be considered of the Court’s own motion

(Art. 230 EC)

2. Economic and social cohesion – European Regional Development Fund – Decision to withdraw financial assistance – Duty to state reasons – Scope – Decision not taking account of factors likely to justify reimbursement of expenditure effected by the national body – Inadequate statement of reasons

(Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24)

Summary

1. Lack or insufficiency of reasoning constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements within the meaning of Article 230 EC and is a matter of public policy which the Community judicature must raise of its own motion.

(see para. 46)

2. The statement of reasons for an individual decision adversely affecting a person must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent court to exercise its power of review.

Accordingly the decision of the Commission on withdrawal of European Regional Development Fund financial assistance does not give sufficient reasons, since it does not comment on the various facts and arguments liable to arise in the decision-making process, with regard to the question whether or not those factors could justify reimbursement of the expenditure effected by the intermediary body before the withdrawal of the assistance, even though a response to those points is essential in order to enable the Court of First Instance to determine whether the contested decision is well founded.

(see paras 47-48, 60)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws

–

Veterinary medicinal products

–

Marketing authorisation (Art. 5, first para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/82, Art. 35; Council Directive 81/851, Art. 20) (see paras 81, 87, 89, 92

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 1404 of 22 April 2003 ordering suspension of the marketing authorisations of veterinary medicinal products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin intended to be administered by intramuscular and/or subcutaneous means to food-producing animals

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2003) 1404 of 22 April 2003 ordering suspension of the marketing authorisations of veterinary medicinal products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin intended to be administered by intramuscular and/or subcutaneous means to food-producing animals;

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

3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Communities’ public procurement – Tendering procedure (see paras 122, 125-127, 130, 142, 145, 147-148)

2. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders (see para. 213)

3. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2)) (see paras 229-231)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of the decision to award the contract which is the subject of the Commission’s call for tenders ENTR/02/55 – CORDIS Lot 1 for the development and provision of services in support of the Community Research and Development Service (CORDIS).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders European Service Network (ESN) 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 (Arts 88(2) and (3) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 46-52, 63)

2. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Interpretation by the court – Limits (see paras 65-66)

3. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Starting point (Art. 230, fifth para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 26(1)) (see paras 72-73)

4. State aid – Planned aid – Examination by the Commission – Preliminary review and main review (Arts 87(3) EC and 88(2) and (3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 4(5) and 5) (see paras 88-90, 117, 124)

5. State aid – Administrative procedure – Obligations of the Commission (Art. 88 EC) (see para. 90)

6. State aid – Not allowed – Exceptions – Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market – Environmental aid (Arts 6 EC, 87(3)(c) EC and 174(1) EC) (see paras 138-143, 148, 152)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 1473 final of 9 July 2003 declaring the measures which the German authorities propose to take to promote the use of insulating materials produced from renewable raw materials compatible with the common market (State aid No 694/2002).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie eV Deutsche Gruppe der Eurima – European Insulation Manufacturers Association to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2009 — Socratec v Commission

(Case T-269/03)

‛Competition — Concentrations — Market in road traffic telematic systems — Applicant declared insolvent in course of proceedings — No further legal interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate’

Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Action seeking annulment of a Commission decision declaring a concentration operation compatible with the common market — Action brought by a competitor of the parties to the operation put into liquidation in the course of the proceedings (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 20, 36-41, 43, 47)

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Decision 2003/792/EC of 30 April 2003 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2903 — DaimlerChrysler/Deutsche Telekom Joint Venture) (OJ 2003 L 300, p. 62).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action;

2. Orders Socratec — Satellite Navigation Consulting, Research & Technology GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission, Daimler AG, Daimler Financial Services AG, Deutsche Telekom AG and Toll Collect GmbH;

3. Orders Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe BV to bear its own 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘B.K.R.’ and word mark BK RODS

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

Summary

There is, for average Austrian consumers, no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, between the figurative sign containing the verbal element ‘B.K.R.’, for which registration as a Community trade mark is applied in respect of ‘Ready-made clothing for women, men and children; belts, footwear (except orthopaedic) and headgear’ in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement, and the word mark BK RODS, previously registered in Austria for certain goods in the same class, since, when making an overall assessment of the marks at issue, visual, aural and conceptual differences between the conflicting signs are sufficient, in spite of the identical nature of the goods designated, to preclude the resemblances between the conflicting signs from giving rise to a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the average consumer.

(see paras 76-77)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade marks

–

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(3)) (see points 39-42

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 July 2004 (R 175/2004-1) which refused to register the figurative mark ‘Longitudinal line ending with a triangle’ as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case :

>lt>3

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

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 lemonade bottle (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 36

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 November 2003 (Case R 490/2003-2) in relation to the registration of a three-dimensional mark in the shape of a lemonade bottle.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(1)) (see para. 20)

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 62-63)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2004 (Case R 394/2003-2) concerning the opposition filed by the holder of the national trade mark STENINGE KERAMIK against registration of the Community trade mark STENINGE SLOTT.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2))

2. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Injury

(Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 3(5) and No 2229/2003)

3. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Injury

(Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 3(3), (6) and (7), and No 2229/2003)

Summary

1. It follows from Article 44(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that the original application must contain the subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law relied on, and that new pleas in law may not be introduced in the course of the proceedings unless they are based on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure. However, a submission or argument which may be regarded as amplifying a plea made previously, whether directly or by implication, in the original application, and which is closely connected therewith, will be declared admissible.

(see paras 60-61)

2. The Council exceeds the wide discretion which it enjoys, when determining in an anti-dumping proceeding the existence of material injury suffered by the Community industry, if it commits an error of fact with regard to the development of the Community industry’s market share during the period which it regards as that during which the injury suffered was most apparent, and thereby adopts a manifestly incorrect premiss for its finding of the existence of that injury, which ought, in accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation No 384/96, to be the result of weighing up the developments, both positive and negative, of the factors which it considered relevant.

(see paras 43-44, 66)

3. Notwithstanding the wide discretion which it has when determining, in the context of an anti-dumping proceeding, the existence of a causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury allegedly suffered by the Community industry, the Council will infringe the basic anti-dumping Regulation No 384/96, and more particularly Article 3(3), (6) and (7) thereof, if it commits manifest errors of assessment by failing to take into consideration, for the periods under investigation, the necessary impact, first, of the contraction in demand on the Community industry’s sales volume, second, of the increase in its market share and its sales volume on the level of its prices and, third, of the change in the structure of its sales on the magnitude of the decrease in its average sales price, which errors necessarily lead it to attribute to the imports in question harmful effects for the Community industry, the origin of which was independent of them.

(see paras 71, 116)
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 well known in a Member State (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31-32)

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 enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 57-59)

Subject of the case

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 20 November 2003 (Case R 10/2003-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG and Mirco Cara.

Information relating to the case

>lt>10

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Time-limit for producing evidence (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(1) and 66(2)) (see paras 52, 56)

2. Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC; European Parliament and Council Decision No 1110/94; Council Decision 94/801) (see paras 63-64, 91-94)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION by the Commission under an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC seeking an order that Trends reimburse the Commission in the sum of EUR 48 046 plus contractual interest or, in the alternative, plus default interest.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the interlocutory application;

2. Orders Transport Environment Development Systems (Trends) to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 48 046 plus default interest at the rate of 5.5% per annum from 1 January 1999 until payment in full of the sum owed;

3. Orders Trends to pay the costs.