ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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

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

Summary

There is, for the average German consumer, a likelihood of confusion between the figurative sign containing the verbal element ‘FERRÓ’, the registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought for ‘Coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapioca, sago, artificial coffee, flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, biscuits, pastry and confectionery, ices, honey, syrup, yeast, baking powder, salt, mustard, all kinds of bread preparations, pepper, vinegar, sauces (condiments), ice, treacle’ in Class 30 of the Nice Agreement, and the word mark FERRERO registered earlier in Germany for goods in the same class, since, first, the goods covered by the trade marks in question are partly identical and partly similar, and, second, the comparison between the dominant verbal element of the mark applied for, ‘ferró’, and that forming the earlier word mark, ‘ferrero’, reveals a certain degree of visual and phonetic similarity between them.

(see paras 43-44, 53, 62)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Substantive scope

(Arts 230 EC, 238 EC and 249 EC)

2. Competition – Fines – Time-limit laid down in Regulation No 2988/74

(Council Regulation No 2988/74, Art. 4)

3. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Decision – Concept

(Arts 230 EC and 249 EC)

Summary

1. A demand for payment of the outstanding balance of a fine for infringement of the competition rules imposed by a Commission decision within the meaning of Article 249 EC and the notice regarding enforcement of the bank guarantee constitute a form of enforcement of that decision and must be regarded as an act administrative in nature.

Although there is a contractual relationship, consisting of a bank guarantee, between a bank and the Commission, which is based on the fined company’s obligation to the Commission and that bank guarantee contains an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC, a challenge to that demand does not constitute a dispute of a contractual nature based on the bank guarantee which would mean that Regulation No 2988/74 concerning limitation periods in proceedings and the enforcement of sanctions under the rules relating to competition did not apply.

It follows that an action for annulment brought pursuant to Article 230 EC constitutes the appropriate action for review of the legality of the contested acts.

(see paras 39-42)

2. Regulation No 2988/74 concerning limitation periods in proceedings and the enforcement of sanctions under the rules relating to competition established a complete system of rules covering in detail the periods within which the Commission is entitled, without undermining the fundamental requirement of legal certainty, to enforce decisions imposing fines on undertakings which are the subject of proceedings under the Community competition rules.

It follows that the mere existence of a contractual relationship between a bank and the Commission, that is to say a bank guarantee to pay a fine imposed for infringement of the competition rules, cannot prevent the possibility of the Commission’s power to enforce the decision imposing the fine on expiry of the time-limit laid down in Article 4 of that regulation being time-barred.

In that regard, it makes no difference whether the bank guarantee may be classified as accessory as regards the main relationship which it guarantees or, conversely, as independent by reason of the clause regarding payment on first demand which it contains.

(see paras 45-46)

3. A decision within the meaning of Article 249 EC is any act clearly and definitively altering its addressee’s legal position.

Such is the case of a demand for payment of the outstanding balance of a fine imposed for infringement of the competition rules, accompanied by a threat to take steps to enforce the bank guarantee, where the Commission’s power to enforce the decision imposing that fine is time-barred.

(see paras 54-57)
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 37-39

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 August 2004 (Case R 771/1999-2), in relation to the registration of a figurative mark consisting of the representation of a rectangular tablet

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 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 an electronic lighter (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 34)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Exception – Acquisition through use – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(3)) (see paras 61-66)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2004 (Case R 469/2003-4), in relation to the registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of an electronic lighter.

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

(

European Regional Development Fund

–

Reduction of financial assistance

–

Action for annulment

–

Act against which proceedings can be brought

–

Preparatory act

–

Inadmissibility

)

Actions for annulment

–

Actionable measures

–

Definition

–

Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24) (see paras 38-43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTIONS for annulment of the decisions contained in two letters of the Directorate‑General for Regional Policy of the Commission of 17 May and 9 August 2004 sent to the applicant concerning reduction of the assistance from the European Regional Development Fund granted for the Objective 2 Programme 1997-1999 North Rhine-Westphalia and the Operational Programme Resider II North Rhine‑Westphalia 1994-1999, and the refusal in consequence to pay the applicant the balances of EUR 5 488 569.24 and EUR 2 268 988.33 respectively.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions as inadmissible;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and half of those incurred by the applicant. The applicant is to bear half of its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Court of Justice – Court of First Instance – Unlimited jurisdiction – Exercise in the context of an action for annulment (Arts 229 EC and 230 EC) (see paras 27-28)

2. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Council Regulation No 729/70) (see paras 30-33, 82-92)

3. Agriculture – EAGGF – Grant of aids and premiums (Council Regulations Nos 729/70 and 3508/92; Commission Regulation No 3887/92) (see paras 52-57)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 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 2004 L 40, p. 31), in so far as it imposes a flat-rate correction of 2% of the expenses declared by Belgium in respect of arable crops.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (see paras 52, 159-161, 186-191)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see para. 184)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 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 2004 L 40, p. 31) in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Finland in connection with area aid in certain regions, because of the insufficiency of the system of control applied.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders The Republic of Finland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Intervention – Objection of inadmissibility not raised by the defendant – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 40, fourth para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 113 and 116(3)) (see paras 31-33)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Legal person (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(5)) (see para. 34)

3. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Obligation on the Commission to rule by way of a decision on the existence of an infringement – None (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see para. 70)

4. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Taking into account the Community interest in investigating a case (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 72, 103)

5. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Decision to take no further action motivated by the possibility of the claimant bringing the matter before the national courts – Lawfulness (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 83, 90)

6. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 96-97)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 17 September 2004 to take no further action on the complaint brought by the applicant against the public undertaking Aéroports de Paris for breach of Article 82 EC (Case COMP/D3/38.666 Au Lys de France/Aéroports de Paris).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Au Lys de France SA 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 49, 52-55

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2003 (Case R 394/2002-4) concerning an opposition procedure between José Jiménez Arellano S.A. and Orsay GmbH.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Orsay GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition – Concentrations – Commission Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market subject to meeting commitments – Commitment to sell assets under the supervision of an independent trustee – Decision to approve the purchaser of transferred asset – Trustee not independent – Decision to approve unlawful

(Council Regulation No 4064/89)

2. Competition – Concentrations – Commission Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market subject to compliance with undertakings – Commitment to sell assets under the supervision of an independent trustee – Trustee not independent

(Council Regulation No 4064/89)

Summary

1. Where the Commission declares a concentration compatible with the common market subject to certain commitments being met, those commitment including the obligation to sell assets and to appoint an independent trustee to ensure that the commitments are met, a decision whereby the Commission approved a purchaser of the assets sold in reliance on, inter alia, a report by a non-independent trustee must be annulled.

(see paras 83, 108-109, 118-119)

2. Where the Commission declares a concentration compatible with the common market subject to certain commitments being met, those commitment including the obligation to sell assets and to appoint an independent trustee to ensure that the commitments are met, it is not possible to regard as being independent a person who was a member of the executive board of one of the companies which are parties to the concentration and who, in addition, performed his duties as such at the same time as the duties of trustee for more than a month, thereby having a dependence on one of the parties capable of casting doubt on his having the neutrality required to perform his tasks as trustee. Even if that person was a member of the executive board concerned as an independent third party, to the extent that he was associated with the exercise of the full range of statutory powers attached to such duties, he could not provide an entirely independent discharge of his responsibilities as a trustee.

(see paras 88-89, 93-94, 100, 103-105)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2005 − Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Commission

(Case T-200/04)

State aid – Measures on the part of the Italian authorities aimed at compensating for the damage caused by ovine catarrhal fever (blue tongue) – Guidelines concerning State aid in the agricultural sector

1. State aid – Prohibitions – Exceptions – Aid to compensate for damage to agricultural production – Aid benefiting undertakings or activities in the processing sector and intended to compensate for damage caused by animal disease – Aid benefiting cheese-producing cooperatives – Excluded (Commission Communication 2000/C 28/02, para. 11) (see paras 46-49)

2. State aid – Investigation by the Commission – No observations from interested parties – No effect on the validity of the Commission’s decision – Obligation to consider of its own motion information which has not been expressly invoked – No such obligation (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 50-58, 70)

3. State aid – Investigation by the Commission – Investigation of an aid scheme taken in its entirety – Whether permissible – Choice made by the Commission in the exercise of its wide discretion to prohibit an aid scheme rather than to approve a scheme subject to the imposition of possible review measures to be taken by the national authorities in each specific case – Unlawful interference by the Commission in the review measures laid down under the national law governing the application of the aid scheme in question – None (see paras 59-61)

4. State aid – Commission decision finding non-notified aid to be incompatible with the common market – Duty to state reasons – Information required (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 63-64)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 471 final of 16 March 2004 concerning the aid scheme which Italy is planning to implement in favour of processing and marketing cooperatives in order to compensate the damage caused by ovine catarrhal fever (blue tongue) (Article 5 of Law No 22 of the Region of Sardinia of 17 November 2000)

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the application;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2006 – Italy and Wam v Commission

(Joined Cases T-304/04 and T-316/04)

State aid – Loans at reduced rates intended to make it possible to become established in certain non-member countries – Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition – Statement of reasons

State aid – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 60-78)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/177/EC of 19 May 2004 on State aid No C 4/2003 (ex NN 102/2002) implemented by Italy for WAM SpA (OJ 2006 L 63, p. 11).

Operative part

The Court:

Annuls Commission Decision 2006/177/EC of 19 May 2004 on State aid No C 4/2003 (ex NN 102/2002) implemented by Italy for WAM SpA (OJ 2006 L 63, p. 11);

Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 – Germany v Commission

(Joined Cases T-314/04 and T-414/04)

(European Regional Development Fund – Reduction of financial assistance – Action for annulment – Act against which proceedings can be brought – Preparatory act – Inadmissibility)

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24) (see paras 38-43)

Re:

ACTIONS for annulment of the decisions contained in two letters of the Directorate‑General for Regional Policy of the Commission of 17 May and 9 August 2004 sent to the applicant concerning reduction of the assistance from the European Regional Development Fund granted for the Objective 2 Programme 1997-1999 North Rhine-Westphalia and the Operational Programme Resider II North Rhine‑Westphalia 1994-1999, and the refusal in consequence to pay the applicant the balances of EUR 5 488 569.24 and EUR 2 268 988.33 respectively.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the actions as inadmissible;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 12 June 2007 – Budĕjovický Budvar v OHIM – Anheuser-Busch (BUDWEISER)

(Joined Cases T-53/04 to T-56/04, T-58/04 and T-59/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Applications for a Community word mark BUDWEISER – Appellations of origin registered under the Lisbon Agreement – Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Rejection of the opposition

1. 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)

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

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Anheuser-Busch Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark BUDWEISER for goods in Classes 9, 14, 16, 21, 25, 29, 30, 35, 38, 41 and 42 – Applications Nos 739177, 24612, 24661, 24620, 24638 and 927533 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Budĕjovický Budvar, národní podnik Mark or sign cited in opposition: Indications of origin BUDWEISER BIER, BUDWEISER BIER-BUDVAR, BUDWEISER BUDVAR Decision of the Opposition Division: Oppositions dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal : Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the applications in Joined Cases T‑53/04 to T‑56/04, T‑58/04 and T‑59/04;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 – Orsay v OHIM – Jiménez Arellano (O orsay)

(Case T-39/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for the word and figurative trade mark O orsay – Earlier national word and figurative trade mark D’ORSAY – Ground for refusal – Risk 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 49, 52-55)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2003 (Case R 394/2002-4) concerning an opposition procedure between José Jiménez Arellano S.A. and Orsay GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Orsay GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word and figurative mark O orsay for goods in Classes 23, 24 and 25 – Application No 1042613 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: José Jiménez Arellano SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish and Portuguese figurative mark D’ORSAY, for goods primarily in Class 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Application for trade mark dismissed for goods (clothing; boots, shoes and slippers; headgear). Opposition dismissed as to the remainder. Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Absence of trade mark proprietor’s consent to registration applied for by an agent or representative in his own name

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(3))

Summary

Article 8(3) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark under which, upon opposition by the proprietor of the trade mark, a trade mark is not to be registered where an agent or representative of the proprietor applies for registration thereof in his own name and without the proprietor’s consent, which must be clear, specific and unconditional, is designed to prevent the misuse of a mark by the trade mark proprietor’s agent, as the agent may exploit the knowledge and experience acquired during its business relationship with the proprietor and therefore improperly benefit from the effort and investment which the trade mark proprietor himself made.

Where there is a change of proprietor of the trade mark between the day on which the consent was given and the day on which the application for registration of the mark was made, it is for the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to consider whether the consent survived that change and whether, on the day of the application for registration of the mark, the new proprietor was still bound by that consent.

(see paras 38, 40, 49-50)
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 paras 83-84

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 February 2005 (Case R 587/2004-4) relating to Opposition Proceedings between Trek Bicycle Corp. and Audi AG.

Information relation to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

3. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.