ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Conditions — Interpretation in the light of EU law — Assessment by reference to the criteria determined by the national law governing the sign relied on (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 18-20, 47)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Sign giving its holder the right to prohibit the use of a more recent trade mark — Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(4)(b), and 74(1)) (see paras 20-22)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — Commercial home Peek & Cloppenburg (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 24, 25, 31, 37, 38, 54, 55)

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 — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 30)

5. 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 — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 33)

6. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Local scope of the sign (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 47-52, 54)

7. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Local scope of the sign — Means of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see para. 53)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2011 (Case R 262/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg and Peek & Cloppenburg KG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Summary statement of pleas (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 14, 15)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Limitation of the list of products and services after the decision of the Board of Appeal — Consequences (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 43(1)) (see paras 21-23)

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 mark BERG and word mark Christian Berg (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 40, 58, 62-66, 71)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2011 (Case R 740/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Anson’s Herrenhaus KG and Caventa AG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Caventa AG to pay the costs.
1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 November 2010 (Case R 1073/2010-2) in so far as it concerns goods in Class 24 covered by the mark applied for and the services ‘processing and finishing of skins, leather, furs and textiles’ in Class 40 and covered by the earlier mark No 2785459;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Own resources of the European Union — Regulation on protection of the financial interests of the Union — Prosecution of irregularities — Limitation period — Decision to reduce financial assistance initially granted under the European Social Fund — Competent national authority entrusted with recovery of sums unduly paid — Inapplicability of the limitation period against the Commission (Council Regulation No 2988/95, Art. 3(1)) (see paras 41-47, 49, 51)

2. EU law — Principles — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Administrative procedure — Criteria for assessment (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1)) (see paras 55-57)

3. Social policy — European Social Fund — Financial assistance for vocational training — Accuracy of facts and accounts in final payment claims to be certified by the Member State — Scope and limits — Decision to reduce assistance initially granted — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Rights of defence — No infringement (Council Regulation No 2950/83, Arts 6(1), and 7(1); Council Decision 83/516, Art. 2(2); Commission Decision 83/673, Art. 7) (see paras 58, 62, 66, 69, 71, 72)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision, on the proposition of a Member State, reducing assistance for the European Social Fund for vocational training — No infringement of the duty to state reasons (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 77-80, 88)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 27 October 2010 setting the final amount of the expenditure eligible for assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF), granted to the applicant for training operations by Commission Decision C(89) 570 of 22 March 1989 for the funding of training operations (file 89 0771 P1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid — Concept — Implementation of the private investor test — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Limits (Art. 107(1) TFEU; Commission Notices 1999/C 288/02, points 4 to 6, 2004/C 244/02, points 4 to 6 and 8, and 2008/C 155/10, points 1.3 and 3.2) (see paras 32-40)

2. State aid — Concept — Assessment according to the criterion of the private investor — Taking of a silent participation in a firm in difficulty — Firm in difficulty — Concept (Commission Notice 1999/C 288/02, points 4 to 6) (see paras 42-49)

3. State aid — Concept — Assessment according to the criterion of the private investor — Taking of a silent participation in a firm in difficulty — Firm in difficulty — Concept — Comfort letter issued by the parent company (Art. 107(1) TFEU; Commission Notices 1999/C 288/02, points 4 to 6 and 8, and 2008/C 14/02) (see paras 63, 70-72, 78, 81, 90, 91, 94, 95, 98-103)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision on State aid — Calculation of the amount of aid to a firm in difficulty — Determination of risk premiums (Arts 107 TFEU and 296 TFEU; Commission Notices 97/C 273/03 and 2008/C 14/02) (see paras 109, 125)

5. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Calculation of the amount of aid to be recovered — Aid to a firm in difficulty — Determination of risk premiums — Complex evaluation of economic matters — Judicial review — Limits (Art. 107(2) TFEU; Commission Notices 97/C 273/03 and 2008/C 14/02) (see paras 112, 118-122, 126, 128, 129)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/471/EU of 14 December 2010 on State aid C 38/05 (ex NN 52/04) granted by Germany to the Biria group (OJ 2011 L 195, p. 55).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders MB System GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Direction issued to the Office — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 14)

2. 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 18)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Signs capable of constituting a mark — Signs composed of a letter or a combination of letters — 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, Arts 4 and 8(1)(b)) (see para. 40)

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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 54)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark GE — Word and figurative marks GE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 60)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 July 2011 (Case R 20/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between General Electric Company and Genebre SA.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Genebre SA to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2013 — European Dynamics Belgium and Others v EMA

(Case T-638/11)

‛Public service contracts — Tender procedure of the EMA — Provision of software application support services — Rejection of a tender — Award criteria — Statement of reasons — Observance of the award criteria set out in the tendering specifications — Establishment of subheadings for the award criteria — Access to documents’

1. 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 — Obligation on the awarding authority to provide a statement of reasons showing clearly and unequivocally the legal and factual elements justifying the rejection of the tender and acceptance of another tender — Scope (Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 147(2) and 149(3)) (see paras 21-24, 29, 30, 34-38, 40, 54-56, 58, 63-68)

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 — Assessment in the light of information available to the applicant at the time the action brought (Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 147(2), and 149(3)) (see para. 59)

3. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Decision of an EU agency refusing access to documents — Documents communicated during the proceedings — Application devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see paras 73, 74)

Re:

ANNULMENT of, first, decision EMA/787935/2011 of the European Medicines Agency of 3 October 2011, by which the tender submitted by the applicants' in tender procedure EMA/2011/05/DV was rejected and, second, annulment of decision EMA/882467/2011 of the acting Executive Director of the EMA of 9 November 2011, by which the applicants confirmatory application for access to the tender procedure documents relating to the composition of the evaluation committee was rejected.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls decision EMA/787935/2011 of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 3 October 2011, by which the tender submitted by European Dynamics Belgium SA; European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics UK Ltd in connection with tender procedure EMA/2011/05/DV was rejected;

2. Holds that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the pleas seeking annulment of decision EMA/882467/2011 of the acting Executive Director of the EMA of 9 November 2011, by which the applicants' confirmatory application for access to the tender procedure documents relating to the composition of the evaluation committee was rejected;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 15)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16, 17)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 18)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word marks IP ZONE, EUROPE IP ZONE, IP ZONE EUROPE and EUROPEAN IP ZONE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 24, 26-36)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTIONS brought against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2010 (Case R 1125/2010-2) and 12 June 2012 (Cases R 1451/2011-2, R 1452/2011-2 and R 1453/2011-2) concerning applications for registration of the sign IP ZONE and of the signs EUROPE IP ZONE, IP ZONE EUROPE and EUROPEAN IP ZONE, respectively, as Community trade marks.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders American Express Marketing & Development Corp. to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2014 — Siemens v Commission

(Case T‑223/11)

‛Arbitration clause — Contract for the loan of fissile material intended for the Joint Research Centre’s Ispra site — Non-performance of the contract — Default interest’

1. Judicial proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Contract subject to national law — Interpretation of the contract having regard to national law — Conditions — Insufficiency of the contractual clauses to resolve the dispute — Doubt as to the content or meaning of the contract (Art. 272 TFEU) (see paras 53, 54)

2. Judicial proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Contract concerning the loan of fissile material intended for the Joint Research Centre’s Ispra site — Claim seeking order for reimbursement by the Commission of the costs of reprocessing fissile material plus default interest — Claim unfounded (Art. 272 TFEU) (see paras 55-64, 77-86, 99)

3. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Plea raised for the first time at the reply stage — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 48(2)) (see paras 90-98)

Re:

ACTION based on an arbitration clause seeking an order for reimbursement by the Commission of all or part of the costs of reprocessing fissile material incurred by the applicant in the context of the performance of Contract No AG 2052 relating to the lending of fissile material intended for the Joint Research Centre site in Ispra (Italy), and for default interest.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Case T‑661/11

Italian Republic

v

European Commission

‛(EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Milk products — Assigned revenue — Key controls — Lateness — Flat-rate financial correction — Legal basis — Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1605/2002 — Recurrence)’

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 2 December 2014

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Similar requirements for claims invoked in support of a plea — Grounds not set out in the application — Reference to annexes as a whole — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c))

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Milk and milk products — Additional levy on milk — Controls by the Member States — Time-limits for controls — Imperative time-limit — Completion of the control (Commission Regulation No 595/2004)

Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Irregularities concerning receipts affected — Flat-rate correction issued by the Commission in accordance with internal guidelines — Controls not giving the expected level of regularity of claims — Whether permissible to apply a flat rate of 5 or 10% where on-the-spot checks carried out outside the time-limits in the milk and milk products sector (Council Regulation No 1605, Art. 53(5))

Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Plea based on matters revealed during the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2))

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Milk and milk products — Receipts affected — Additional levy on milk — Control of detailed rules for recovery by the Commission (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 53(5))
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 — Pangyrus v OHIM — RSVP Design (COLOURBLIND)

(Case T‑257/11)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark COLOURBLIND — Word sign COLOURBLIND — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. 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 — Review of the legal classification given to the facts of the dispute — Included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2)) (see paras 28-31)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an earlier trade mark as referred to in Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(4), and 53(1)(c)) (see paras 38, 39)

3. National law — Reference to national law — United Kingdom law — Action for passing off (see paras 45, 49, 50)

4. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Applicant in bad faith at the time of lodging the trade mark application — Criteria for assessment — Taking account of all the relevant factors existing at the time of filing the application for registration (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(2), and 52(1)(b)) (see paras 62-64, 66-68, 78)

5. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Applicant in bad faith at the time of lodging the trade mark application — Proof of bad faith — Probative value of the evidence — Criteria for assessment — Solemn declarations (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 78(1)(f)) (see paras 121, 125)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 March 2011 (Case R 751/2009-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Pangyrus Ltd and RSVP Design Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Case T‑536/11

(publication by extracts)

European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and Others

v

European Commission

‛Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of computing services for the development and maintenance of software, consultancy and assistance for different types of IT applications — Ranking of a tenderer’s bid in the cascade for different lots and ranking of the bids of other tenderers — Obligation to state reasons — Award criterion — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability’

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber), 8 July 2015

EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits

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 — Assessment having regard to information available to the applicant at the time the action brought (Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(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 — No obligation on the awarding authority to communicate the report of the evaluation committee and the accepted tenders to a tenderer which submitted a tender ranked lower in the cascade — No obligation on the awarding authority to provide a detailed comparative analysis of the accepted tender and that of the tenderer ranked lower in the cascade (Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3))

EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Obligation to comply with the principle of transparency — Scope (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, 100(2))

EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Actions against decisions of the awarding authority to award public contracts — Audi alteram partem rule — Reconciliation with the protection of business secrets — Obligation to ensure confidentiality and the right to compliance with business secrecy in relation to information contained in the files communicated by the parties — Conditions — Reconciliation of the said obligation with the requirements of effective judicial protection and respect for the defence rights of parties to the dispute in order to guarantee the right to a fair trial (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2))