ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The procedure for clearing the accounts of the Guarantee section of the EAGGF, of the EAGF and of the EAFRD, pursuant to Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999 and Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005, whereby Member States present accounts in respect of expenditure incurred by the funds, serves to determine whether the expenditure was actually and properly incurred. In that procedure the Commission is under an obligation to carry out a financial correction if the expenditure in respect of which financing has been requested has not been carried out in accordance with Union rules, such a financial correction being designed to avoid the funds being burdened with amounts that have not served to finance an objective pursued by the Community legislation in question.

The accounts clearance procedure of Article 31(1) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and the financial corrections which follow from it apply only in cases where expenditure was incurred by the Member States and it was financed by the EAGGF or the EAFRD. Where a financial correction does not have a sufficient connection with any expenditure whatever financed by the funds that would have been contrary to the Union rules, it cannot be implemented in the context of an accounts clearance procedure.

Clearance of accounts merely enables consequences to be drawn from regularisations irregularly carried out pursuant to Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1493/1999. Therefore, a financial correction applied by the Commission which does not relate to expenses financed by those funds lacks a legal basis and is directly contrary both to Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 and to the second paragraph of Article 86(1) of Regulation No 479/2008.

The same applies to the calculation method used by the Commission the latter has not sought to determine the amount of losses for the funds occasioned by vines irregularly regularised pursuant to Article 2(3)(a) of Regulation No 1493/1999, where it had information allowing it to follow that course. Similarly, no provision of Regulation No 479/2008 envisages the possibility of regularising vines irregularly planted through the Member State concerned paying the Commission a sum equivalent to a regularisation fee in the context of the clearance of accounts, since the reservation in the second subparagraph of Article 86(1) cannot have such a scope.

(see paras 167, 172, 177, 178, 181, 188, 191, 197, 200, operative part 1)
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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 16-18, 54)

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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 24)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 31)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Work marks THE HUT and LA HUTTE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 41, 47, 48, 55)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 April 2012 (Case R 814/2011‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between Intersport France and The Hut.com Ltd.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders The Hut.com Ltd to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 —

FIS’D v Commission

(Case T‑283/12)

‛Erasmus Mundus action programme — Framework partnership agreement — Specific grant agreement — EACEA decision to rescind the framework agreement and amend the specific agreement — Administrative appeal before the Commission — Commission decision dismissing the administrative appeal as unfounded — Infringement of the agreements and the administrative and financial manual’

Actions for annulment — Grounds — Action programme for improving the quality of higher education and promoting inter-cultural comprehension through co‑operation with non-member countries (Erasmus Mundus) — Framework partnership agreement and specific grant agreement — Adoption of a decision, by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), on the termination of the framework agreement and the amendment of the specific agreement — No misuse of powers (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Decision 1298/2008) (see para. 113)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission decision of 12 April 2012 (ref. Ares (2012) 446225) dismissing the administrative appeal against the decision of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) of 13 January 2012 by which the latter rescinded early the framework partnership agreement 2011/0181 which it had concluded with the Università degli Studi Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria (Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria, Italy) and amended the specific grant agreement which it had concluded with that university.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders FIS’D — Formazione integrata superiore del design to bear its own costs and those of the European Commission;
In principle, a restriction within the meaning of Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 to the list of goods or services contained in a Community trade mark application made after the adoption of the decision of the Board of Appeal challenged before the Court cannot affect the legality of that decision, which is the only decision being challenged before the Court. It must also be noted, however, that a decision of a Board of Appeal of OHIM can be challenged before the Court in relation solely to some of the goods or services in the list given in the Community trade mark application concerned. In such a case, that decision becomes final in respect of the other goods or services on the same list.

Thus, a statement by the trade mark applicant before the General Court, and thus subsequent to the decision of the Board of Appeal, that he withdraws his application in respect of some of the products referred to in the initial application may be interpreted a statement that the contested decision is being challenged only in so far as it covers the remainder of the goods concerned, or as a partial withdrawal, where the statement was made at an advanced stage of the proceedings before the Court.

However, if, by its restriction of the list of goods referred to in the Community trade mark application, the applicant for the trade mark is not seeking to withdraw from that list one or more goods, but to alter one or more characteristics, it is possible that that alteration might have an effect on the examination of the Community trade mark carried out by the instances of OHIM during the administrative procedure. In those circumstances, to allow that alteration at the stage of the action before the Court would amount to changing the subject-matter of the proceedings pending, which is prohibited by Article 135(4) of the Rules of Procedure. Therefore such a restriction cannot be taken into account by the Court when examining the merits of the case.

(see paras 18-21)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Action against a decision refusing to withdraw or amend an earlier act — Inadmissibility — Meaning of confirmatory decision — Reexamination of an earlier decision in reply to a claim of new and substantial facts — Not included — Concept of new and substantial facts — Scope (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 40-46, 52)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — Obligation to communicate, following a written request, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the tenderer — No obligation on the awarding authority to provide a detailed summary of how every detail of the rejected tender was taken into account for assessment purposes or a detailed comparative analysis of the successful and unsuccessful tender (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2)) (see paras 62, 63, 66-68)

3. EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (Council Regulation No 1605/2002) (see para. 77)

4. EU law — Principles — Equal treatment — Concept — Limits (see para. 78)

5. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — None — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 99)

6. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Misuse of powers — Concept (see para. 103)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of the decision of 28 February 2012 of the European Union Delegation to Ukraine, in the restricted tender procedure EuropeAid/131567/C/SER/UA ‘Crimean tourism diversification and support project’, not to award the contract to the applicants’ consortium, and the subsequent decisions rejecting the applicants’ complaints made on 14 March 2012 by that authority and on 2 May 2012 by the Director of the Neighbourhood Directorate of the Commission’s Directorate General for Development and Co-operation — EuropeAid.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Euro-Link Consultants Srl and European Profiles AE Meleton kai Symvoulon Epicheiriseon to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 11 February 2015 — Fetim v OHIM — Solid Floor (Solidfloor The professional’s choice)

(Case T‑395/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Solidfloor The professional’s choice — Earlier national figurative mark SOLID floor, earlier trade name and domain name Solid Floor Ltd — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods and services — 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18, 24, 41, 44)

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 — Figurative marks Solidfloor The professional’s choice and SOLID floor (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-21, 23, 46)

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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 22)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark — Weak distinctive character of the dominant element (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 32)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries — Decisions not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 31)

6. 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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2012 (Case R 884/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Solid Floor Ltd and Fetim BV.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2015 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Holsten-Brauerei (H)

(Case T‑193/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark H — Earlier national figurative mark H — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Failure to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Exclusion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 16)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20-22, 51)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative marks H (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 55-58)

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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26)

5. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see para. 60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2012 (Case R 2340/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Holsten-Brauerei AG and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Annulment or variation for reasons appearing after judgment was delivered — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2)) (see para. 24)

2. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Interpretation having regard to the rationale of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 56)

3. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 58-60, 95-98)

4. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), second para., (a), and 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 73, 74)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2012 (Case R 2103/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Nestlé Schöller GmbH & Co. KG and Lotte Co. Ltd.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 September 2012 (Case R 2103/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Nestlé Schöller GmbH & Co. KG and Lotte Co. Ltd;

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH;

3. Orders Lotte Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.
For the relevant public composed of average German consumers or professionals from the construction sector, there is no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark between the figurative sign Rock & Rock, registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought in respect of goods falling within Classes 2, 19 and 27 of the Nice arrangement, and the word marks MASTERROCK, FIXROCK, COVERROCK, and CEILROCK, previously registered in Germany for goods or services in Classes 6, 17, 19 or 37.

The goods covered by the signs at issue are in part similar, and, as to the rest, either slightly similar or dissimilar. In addition, the relevant public’s level of attention is particularly high and there is only a low degree of similarity between the signs at issue, which, moreover, stems from an element which is largely descriptive and/or laudatory of the goods in question and laudatory of the services covered. Lastly, the distinctiveness of the earlier trade marks, with the exception of the trade mark CEILROCK, which is averagely distinctive, is weak.

In the context of a global assessment of the signs at issue, in view of the fact that the relevant public’s level of attention is particularly high at the time of purchasing the goods covered, the visual, aural and conceptual differences separating the signs at issue are sufficient to prevent the similarities stemming from the presence of the shared element ‘rock’ from giving rise to a likelihood of confusion on the part of average German consumers or professionals from the construction sector despite the similarities between some of the goods covered.

Since the element ‘rock’ is largely descriptive and laudatory of the goods and services covered by the earlier trade marks, it is not capable of constituting the shared core of a family of trade marks. Recognition of the family of trade marks containing the serial element ‘rock’ would lead precisely to the monopolisation of the element ‘rock’, which is largely descriptive and/or laudatory of the goods and services covered by the earlier trade marks. The enhanced protection resulting from the recognition of a family of trade marks would mean that, in practice, no other operator would be able to register a trade mark containing the element ‘rock’ and could even, depending on the circumstances, be banned from using that element in its slogans and advertising materials. Such a restriction of free competition, which would be the result of a basic English word being reserved for a single economic operator, cannot be justified by the desire to reward the creative or advertising efforts expended by the proprietor of the earlier trade marks. When there is no enhanced distinctiveness through use, the commercial value represented by that reservation is the result, not of such efforts on the part of the proprietor, but only of the meaning of the word, predetermined by the language in question, which refers to the characteristics of the goods and services concerned.

(see paras 19, 24, 81, 83, 86, 96, 97)
18

The transcription and English translation, certified by a sworn translator engaged by the applicant, of a radio interview given by the applicant in Maltese on the evening of 16 October 2012 include the following statements: ‘Interviewer: You handed in your resignation. Firstly, why did you resign? Applicant: This is from what I was informed verbally. As a matter of fact, up till now I do not have anything in writing. … In fact I have started to talk to people, to my lawyers this very evening to open the necessary procedures so that it is proven that these conclusions are completely false. I am issuing a press release today wherein I am also stating that I will continue to work so that the effort that my people and I have made to revise the tobacco directive, that was proposing harsher rules on smoking, will continue as planned. Next Monday we were going to start the process. I hope that this process continues. ... Interviewer: Then why did you resign, John? Why did you feel the need to resign since …? Applicant: Let me tell you as I said some time ago on another television programme. I do not stay where I am not wanted, ok, and this I take very seriously. I have started working from today and want a completely free hand so that I can. I oppose these allegations. Interviewer: You have just said that you do not stay where you are not wanted. President Barroso forced you to resign; am I understanding you well? Applicant: These are words that in my opinion are correct to say, that I will not stay where I am not wanted and I will leave it at that. Interviewer: But did Barroso force you to resign? (unintelligible words, with the two persons talking simultaneously) Applicant: There will be developments in the coming days. Interviewer: Did he force you to resign or did you decide? Applicant: There will be developments in the coming days. Interviewer: What developments can we expect from all this? Applicant: The developments that I am seeking advice from my lawyers and I will act step by step on their advice in all the developments that I decide to make. ...’