ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Commission decision finding 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))

2. ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Competence of the Commission under Article 65(4) and (5) CS to determine and penalise an infringement of Article 65(1) CS – Disappearance on the expiry of the ECSC Treaty

(Arts 65(1), (4) and (5) CS, and 97 CS; Art. 305(1) EC; Merger Treaty)

Summary

1. A Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 65(1) CS and imposing a fine on undertakings alleged to have participated in a cartel in breach of that provision has its legal basis solely in Article 65(4) and (5) where it refers expressly to that legal basis and contains no reference to a legal basis constituted by Article 3 and Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17. The fact that, in a second statement of objections sent to the undertakings concerned, the Commission stated that it had opened new proceedings on the basis of Regulation No 17 and referred explicitly to Article 3 of that regulation is not in itself sufficient to justify a finding that the legal basis of the decision is constituted by Article 3 and Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17.

(see paras 76, 78, 93-94, 101)

2. Although the principles governing the succession of legal rules may lead to the application of substantive provisions which are no longer in force at the time of the adoption of a measure by a Community institution, the Commission is no longer able, after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on 23 July 2002, to derive competence from Article 65(4) and (5) CS in order to establish an infringement of Article 65(1) CS and to impose fines on the undertakings which had participated in the infringement, since the provision constituting the legal basis of a measure must be in force at the time that it is adopted.

The Commission’s competence in that respect is not affected either by the fact that the ECSC Treaty constituted a lex specialis in relation to the EC Treaty in accordance with Article 305(1) EC, or by the indivisibility of the Community legal order resulting from the Merger Treaty and the need for coherence in the interpretation of the substantive provisions contained in the various Community treaties, or by the principles governing the succession of substantive and procedural legal rules.

(see paras 113-116, 118, 120)
Case T-10/03





Jean-Pierre Koubi

v

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





«(Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark CONFORFLEX – Earlier national word and figurative marks FLEX – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 18 February 2004

Summary of the Judgment
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2007 – Al-Aqsa v Council

(Case T-327/03)

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism – Freezing of funds – Action for annulment – Statement of reasons

1. Procedure – Decision replacing the contested decision during the proceedings (see paras 33-36)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 2580/2001; Common Position of the Council 2001/931, Art. 1(4) and (6)) (see paras 53-55, 56-58)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Correction of an error of reasoning during the proceedings before the Court – Not permissible (Art. 253 EC) (see para. 65)

Re:

ACTION for annulment in part, first, of Council Decision 2003/480/EC of 27 June 2003 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/974/EC (OJ 2003 L 160, p. 81), and, second, of Council Decision 2003/646/EC of 12 September 2003 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2003/480 (OJ 2003 L 229, p. 22).

Operative part

The Court:

Annuls Council Decision 2006/379/EC of 29 May 2006 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2005/930/EC in so far as it concerns Stichting Al-Aqsa;

Declares that there is no need to rule on the claim for a declaration, pursuant to Article 241 EC, that Council Regulation No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 is unlawful;

Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Stichting Al-Aqsa;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 17 April 2008 – Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg. v OHIM – Pelikan (Representation of a pelican)

(Case T-389/03)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for a figurative Community trade mark depicting a pelican – Earlier Community or national figurative trade mark Pelikan – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 96, 98, 102-103, 106)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 September 2003 (Case R 191/2002-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg. Co. Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg. Co. Ltd Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark for goods in Classes 1, 2 and 17 – Application No 1005826 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community or national figurative mark Pelikan Decision of the Opposition Division: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
The global appreciation of the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark must, as regards the visual, phonetic or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, be based on the overall impression given by those marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components.

As regards the visual similarity, a compound trade mark cannot be regarded as being similar to another trade mark which is identical or similar to one of the components of the compound mark unless that component forms the dominant element within the overall impression created by the compound mark. That is the case where that component is likely to dominate, by itself, the image of that mark which the relevant public keeps in mind, with the result that all the other components of the mark are negligible within the overall impression created by it.

Where a sign consists of both figurative and verbal elements, it does not automatically follow that it is the verbal element which must always be considered to be dominant. The figurative element may occupy a position equivalent to the verbal element.

In addition, even in circumstances where two conflicting marks are composed of similar verbal elements that fact does not, by itself, support the conclusion that there is a visual similarity between the signs. The presence, in one of the signs, of figurative elements set out in a specific and original way can have the effect that the overall impression conveyed by each sign is different.

(see paras 38, 45-48)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 33

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2004 (Case R 408/2003-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Fernando Rodrigues Carvalhais and Profilpas Snc

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

–

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 marks CARPOVIRUSINE and CARPO (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 71-72

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 March 2004 (Case R 289/2003-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Calliope SAS and BASF AG.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

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 law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations (see para. 119)

2. Social policy – European Social Fund – Financial assistance for vocational training (Council Regulation No 2950/83, Arts 5(4), 6 and 7(1); Council Decision 83/516, Art. 2(2)) (see paras 121, 126)

3. Community law – Principles – Duty to act within a reasonable time (see para. 128)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 8 August 2003 reducing the assistance of the European Social Fund (ESF) and, therefore, rejecting the application for payment of the balance of the assistance from the ESF, initially approved for operational program 87 03 01 P1.

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

Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing (Council Regulation No 2052/88, Art. 12(4)) (see paras 67-77)

2. Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling act – Effects (Art. 233 EC) (see paras 89-94)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 145-155)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 3971 final of 26 November 2003 establishing indicative allocations between the Member States of the commitment appropriations under Community initiatives for the period 1994-1999 and of all related prior measures.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and the costs of the defendant.
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 unregistered trade mark or other sign used in commerce (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 70-74)

2. 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 commerce (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(4)) (see para. 204)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against six decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2003 (Cases R 820/2001-2, R 822/2001-2, R 823/2001-2, R 921/2001-2, R 29/2002-2 and R 32/2002-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik and Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the applications in Joined Cases T‑53/04 to T‑56/04, T‑58/04 and T‑59/04;

2. Orders Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. European Community – Rules on languages

(Council Regulation No 1, Art. 3)

2. European Community – Rules on languages

(Council Regulation No 1, Art. 3)

3. Fisheries – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Community policy on fishing fleets

(Council Regulation No 2371/2002, Arts 12 and 13)

Summary

1. When adopting a measure, infringement of Article 3 of Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community constitutes a procedural irregularity, which can, however, entail the annulment of the act ultimately adopted only if, were it not for that irregularity, the procedure could have led to a different result.

(see para. 35)

2. Documents relating to a point in a management committee’s agenda must be addressed to each Member State in its official language, as required by Article 3 of Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community.

However, that obligation does not exist as regards proposed amendments to a document, which has already been duly transmitted to the committee members, made during a committee meeting, where nothing in that committee’s rules of procedure requires such proposals to be submitted in writing in all the official languages. That possibility of submitting amendments orally in a committee meeting exists, even if the amendments made to the draft added into the meeting’s agenda are substantive. If the Commission were obliged to submit proposed amendments in writing in all the official languages, it would be practically impossible to make substantive amendments to a draft at a meeting.

(see paras 40-41)

3. The words ‘from 1 January 2003’ in Article 13(1) of Regulation No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy refer both to entries into the fishing fleet and withdrawals to compensate for them, so that only withdrawals made after that date may be taken into account. Consequently, the compensation scheme for entries and exits established by Regulation No 2371/2002 implies that the capacity of a Member State’s fishing fleet may not increase beyond its existing level on 1 January 2003. The reference levels fixed under Article 12 of Regulation No 2371/2002 are necessary only for the Member States which exceeded them on 1 January 2003, and will become superfluous once all the Member States comply with them.

(see paras 67-77)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 16(3), 17(2) and 20(2))

2. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal brought against a decision of the Opposition Division of the Office – Examination by Board of Appeal – Scope

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2))

Summary

1. It may be inferred from the reference in Rule 16(3) of Regulation No 2868/95 implementing Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark to Rule 20(2), on the one hand, and in Rule 17(2) to Rule 16(3) on the other, that the period set by the Opposition Division pursuant to Rule 20(2) for the submission of the particulars of the facts, evidence and arguments in support of the opposition also applies to translations in the language of the opposition proceedings of the evidence of the reputation of the opponent’s earlier marks.

Where the latter does not provide the Opposition Division with translations, in the language of the proceedings, of the evidence and documents supporting the reputation of its earlier marks until after the expiry of that period, it is to be regarded as having failed to submit that evidence in due time, within the meaning of Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94, so that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) may disregard it, pursuant to that provision.

(see paras 50, 61)

2. When hearing an action against a decision dismissing an opposition to the registration of a sign as a Community trade mark, the Board of Appeal has a wide discretion under Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark to decide, while giving reasons for its decision in that regard, whether or not to take account of facts and evidence before it which were submitted out of time before the Opposition Division. Taking such facts or evidence into account is particularly likely to be justified where, first, the material which has been produced late is, on the face of it, likely to be relevant to the outcome of the opposition and, second, the stage of the proceedings at which that late submission takes place and the circumstances surrounding it do not argue against such matters being taken into account.

A Board of Appeal will therefore err in law if it declines from the outset to exercise its discretion in deciding whether or not to take account of such evidence and documents.

(see paras 62-63, 67)
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 43-45

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2004 (Case R 909/2002-4) concerning an opposition procedure between José Jiménez Arellano S.A. and Orsay GmbH.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Orsay GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Not included

(Arts 230 EC and 256 EC; Financial regulation applicable to the Ninth European Development Fund, Arts 44, 45 and 46(2))

Summary

Only measures which produce binding legal effects and are capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position constitute measures challengeable by an action for annulment under Article 230 EC.

In the case of acts or decisions adopted by a procedure involving several stages, in particular where they are the culmination of an internal procedure, in principle, an act is open to review only if it is a measure definitively laying down the position of the Commission at the conclusion of that procedure, and not a provisional measure intended to pave the way for that final decision.

It is clear from various provisions of the financial regulation applicable to the Ninth European Development Fund that a debit note constitutes information given to the debtor. Since Article 44 and Article 46(2) of the said regulation mention a distinct enforceable decision subsequent to the debit note in the framework of the recovery procedure, the debit note is clearly not enforceable. It is a preparatory measure preceding the possible adoption of a decision by the Commission to continue the recovery procedure either by initiating legal proceedings or by adopting a decision under Article 256 EC. Consequently, it does not constitute a measure definitively laying down the position of the Commission, does not produce binding legal effects that are capable of affecting the interests of the applicant and, consequently, cannot constitute a measure challengeable by way of an action for annulment under Article 230 EC.

(see paras 67, 69, 76)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 3 October 2006 – Hewlett-Packard v Commission

(Case T-313/04)

Refusal of repayment of import duties – Action for annulment – Importation of printers and printer cartridges from Singapore – Particular circumstances – Equity clause – Article 239 of Regulation (EC) No 2913/92

1. Acts of the institutions – Temporal application – Immediate application of a new procedural rule – Retrospective effect of a substantive rule – Conditions (Council Regulation No 3093/95; Commission Regulation No 3009/95) (see para. 53)

2. Own resources of the European Communities – Repayment or remission of import or export duties (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 905) (see paras 55-61)

3. Community law – Principles – Legal certainty – Community legislation (see para. 66)

4. Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions (see paras 72-73)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision REM 06/02 of 7 April 2004 advising the German authorities that the applicant should not receive repayment of import duties on printers and printer cartridges from Singapore.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 1 February 2006 − Rodrigues Carvalhais v OHIM

(Case T-206/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Figurative mark containing the word element ‘PERFIX’ – Earlier Community figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘cerfix’ – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2004 (Case R 408/2003-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Fernando Rodrigues Carvalhais and Profilpas Snc

Information relating to the case:

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Fernando Rodrigues Carvalhais Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark ‘PERFIX’ – Application No 1635515, for goods in Classes 6 (Sections of metal and accessories therefor), 17 (Sections of plastics and accessories therefor, gaskets and linings of plastics) and 19 (Building materials, not of metal, linings and seals for ceramics, linings and seals for marble, linings and seals for cladding in general (not included in other classes)) Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Profilpas, Snc. Mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Figurative mark ‘CERFIX’ No 587725 and word mark ‘PROFIX’ No 771196 Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was annuled and the opposition was allowed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;