ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
In the context of the review of State aid by the Commission, in order to assess whether a letter sent to a complainant in reply to his complaint constitutes an actionable measure, the Court of First Instance must determine, in the light of the substance of the contested measure, whether it constitutes a decision under Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999 on the application of Article 88 EC or merely an informal communication, as provided for in the second sentence of Article 20(2) of that regulation. It is thus apparent from the procedure applicable to complaints concerning State aid, as laid down in Regulation No 659/1999 and, in particular, in Article 20(2) thereof, that while the Commission is under an obligation to examine without delay information regarding allegedly unlawful aid which is sent to it by a third party in a complaint, it is not required to adopt a decision under Article 4 of that regulation in response to each complaint. The obligation on the Commission to adopt a decision in response to a complaint arises only in the situation envisaged in Article 13 of Regulation No 659/1999. Under the second sentence of Article 20(2) of that regulation, the Commission need only inform the complainant by letter that there are insufficient grounds for taking a view on the case. The latter situation arises, in particular, where Article 13 of Regulation No 659/1999 does not apply because, in reality, the aid referred to in the complaint is not unlawful aid, but existing aid.

A letter from the Commission categorising as existing aid the measures complained of in a complaint lodged by a competing undertaking of the undertaking which received the aid does not produce binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of that complainant. It must be regarded as an informal communication, as provided for in the second sentence of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999, the content of which does not reflect a decision under Article 4 of that regulation and does not therefore constitute an actionable measure for the purposes of Article 230 EC.

(see paras 42-44, 68, 70)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a))

Summary

The mark CANNABIS should not have been registered as a Community trade mark for ‘beers’ and ‘wine, spirits, liqueurs, sparkling beverages, sparkling wine, champagne’ in Classes 32 and 33 respectively of the Nice Agreement on account of the existence of the absolute ground of refusal referred to in Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

The word sign CANNABIS inherently constitutes, for consumers, a simple and direct indication of one of the possible ingredients of the goods for which the mark was registered. Accordingly, the word sign CANNABIS goes far beyond the realm of suggestion and comes within the realm of description. That sign must therefore be regarded as descriptive and not as suggestive or allusive.

The single word ‘cannabis’ used as a trade mark may be held to be descriptive if it refers, actually or potentially, to one of the characteristics of the product, namely one of the ingredients that may be used in the manufacture of the beverages in question. In view of the supply of beverages containing hemp which already exists on the market, the sign CANNABIS may at present designate one of the ingredients used in the manufacture of the goods for which the mark was registered.

Furthermore, the fact that a word has a number of meanings is irrelevant in determining whether it is descriptive. Thus, the fact that the word ‘cannabis’ may have three different meanings has no role to play in ascertaining whether it has a descriptive character. It is sufficient for there to be a direct and specific relationship between one of the meanings and the goods in question for Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 to be applicable.

It follows that the sign CANNABIS refers to the cannabis plant, which is well known to the public as a result of media coverage and is used in the manufacturing processes of certain foodstuffs and beverages. The average consumer will therefore immediately and without further thought make a connection between the sign in question and the characteristics of the goods in respect of which the mark has been registered, all of which renders the sign descriptive.

(see paras 34, 36-38)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Burden of proof – Degree of precision required of the evidence used by the Commission (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 32-34)

2. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements between undertakings – Burden of proof – Statement of an incriminated undertaking challenged by other parties to the same agreement – Probative value – Assessment (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 35)

3. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding an infringement – Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission – Extent of the burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 36)

4. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Participation of an undertaking in anti-competitive initiatives – Tacit approval without public distancing sufficient to render the undertaking liable (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 52)

5. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement – Burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC)) (see para. 70)

6. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Relevant market – Delimitation – Criteria (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 81)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 – Fittings), and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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



Keywords

Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Evidence which has to be gathered — Degree of evidential value required (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 28)

2. Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement — Undertakings that may be held responsible for participating in an overall cartel — Criteria — Participation in identical or similar collusive arrangements covering the same products — Not included (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 52-54, 62, 65)

3. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Deterrent effect of the fine — Application of a multiplying coefficient — Taking into account of the overall turnover of the undertaking — Discretion of the Commission (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, Section 1A, fourth and fifth paras) (see paras 76-77, 79-83)

4. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Turnover taken into consideration — Reference year — Last complete year of the infringement (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 88, 91-92)

5. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Passive or ‘follow-my-leader’ role of the undertaking — Criteria for assessment (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, Section 3, first indent) (see paras 107-108)

6. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Non-imposition or reduction of the fine for cooperation of the undertaking concerned — Need for conduct which facilitated the Commission’s finding of an infringement — Inability to supply information because relevant documents not kept following the transfer of the subsidiary — No effect (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 96/C 207/04) (see paras 115-117)

7. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Gravity of the infringement — Aggravating circumstances — Repeated infringement — Similar infringements successively committed by two subsidiaries of the same parent (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 129-133)

8. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Deterrent effect — General requirement having to guide the Commission throughout the calculation of fines — Specific stage for an overall assessment of all relevant circumstances not imperative (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, Section 1A) (see paras 134-138)

9. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Gravity of the infringement — Obligation to take account of the actual impact on the market — Scope (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 143-146)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2012 — Arbos v Commission

(Case T-161/06)

‛Action for damages — ‘Culture 2000’ programme — Grants made for projects — Claims for payment of various sums — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure — Inadmissible’

1. Proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Application containing no precise indication of the legal basis of the action or argument developing the pleas raised — Inadmissibility — Development at the reply stage — Not relevant (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 paras 19-21, 29, 38, 39, 53, 54, 59)

2. Proceedings — Legal basis of an action — Choice for the applicant, not the EU judicature (see para. 24)

Re:

ACTION for compensation from the Commission, first, for payment of EUR 38 585.42 plus interest at 12% from 1 January 2001 and EUR 27 618.91 plus interest at 12% from 1 March 2003 and, second, the payment of EUR 26 459.38 excluding VAT for fees for lawyers instructed during the pre-litigation phase.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2007 – Castell del Remei v OHIM – Bodegas Roda (Castell del Remei ODA)

(Case T-101/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for figurative Community trade mark Castell del Remei ODA – Earlier international word mark RODA and earlier national trade marks RODA, RODA I, RODA II and BODEGAS RODA – 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 paras 71-72, 82)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2006 (Case R 263/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Roda SA and Castell del Remei SL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Castell del Remei, SL Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Castell del Remei ODA for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 33 – Application No 2325256 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bodegas Roda, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: International word mark RODA, Spanish word marks RODA (No 1757553), RODA I (No 2006616), RODA II (No 2006615) and BODEGAS RODA (No 137050), concerning goods in Class 33, and trade name BODEGAS RODA, SA for the wine trade Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 22 April 2008 – Casa Editorial El Tiempo v OHIM – Instituto Nacional de Meteorología (EL TIEMPO)

(Case T-233/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition – Application for Community word mark EL TIEMPO – Earlier national word marks TELETIEMPO – 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49-50, 52, 57)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 June 2006 (Case R 760/2005-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Instituto Nacional de Meteorología and Casa Editoria El Tiempo, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Casa Editorial El Tiempo, SA Community trade mark sought: Word mark EL TIEMPO for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 38 and 41 – Application No 1685056 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Instituto Nacional de Meteorología Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word marks EL TIEMPO for the publications (not registered but well known), TELETIEMPO for goods in Class 16 (No 1902923) and for services in Class 38 (No 2217494), and TELETIEMPO INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE METEOROLOGÍA for goods in Classes 35 (No 2217493) and 41 (No 2217492) Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld; registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition dismissed for services in Classes 35 and 41





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 January 2008 – Inter‑Ikea v OHIM – Waibel (idea)

(Case T-112/06)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community figurative mark ‘idea’ – Earlier Community and national figurative and word marks ‘IKEA’ – Relative ground for invalidity – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) 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 80-81, 85)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2006 (Case R 80/2005-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Inter Ikea Systems BV and Walter Waibel.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark subject to an action for cancellation: Figurative mark ‘idea’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 20 and 42 – Application No 283952 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Walter Waibel Party bringing the action for cancellation: Inter-Ikea Systems BV Trade mark of the applicant for cancellation: Various figurative and word marks, Community and national, for goods in Classes 16, 20 and 42 Decision of the Cancellation Division: Cancellation of the mark ‘idea’ Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of application





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 – Tsakiris-Mallas v OHIM – Late Editions (exē)

(Case T-96/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark exē – Earlier national word mark EXE – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of goods and signs – 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 para. 40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 1127/2004-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Late Editions Ltd and Tsakiris-Mallas EPE (now Tsakiris-Mallas AE).

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Tsakiris-Mallas AE Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark exē for goods in Classes 18 and 25 – Application No 2190015 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Late Editions Ltd Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark EXE for goods in Class 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in respect of some of the products Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2008 – REWE‑Zentral v OHIM (Port Louis)

(Case T-230/06)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark PORT LOUIS – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Designation of the geographical origin of the goods – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation(EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 39, 45, 54, 65-66, 70-72)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 June 2006 (Case R 25/2006-1) concerning an application to register the word mark PORT LOUIS as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: REWE-Zentral AG Community trade mark sought: Word mark Port Louis for goods in Classes 18, 24 and 25 – Application No 3664133 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

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 21 June 2006 (Case R 25/2006-1);
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 18 December 2008 – Torres v OHIM – Bodegas Cándido (TORRE DE FRIAS)

(Case T-285/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community word mark TORRE DE FRIAS – Earlier national and international word marks TORRES and LAS TORRES – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion

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 42, 69)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 July 2006 (Case R 1069/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Bodegas Cándido, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bodegas Cándido, SA Community trade mark sought: Word mark TORRE DE FRIAS, for goods in Class 33 – Application No 305151 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Miguel Torres, SA Marks or signs cited in opposition: National and international word mark TORRES and international word mark LAS TORRES, for goods in Class 33 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26 November 2008 – United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-278/06)

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Butter – Check of the quantity of product obtained – On-the-spot checks – Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2571/97

1. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules (Council Regulation No 1258/1999) (see paras 21-23, 91, 100)

2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products (Commission Regulation No 2571/97, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 48-55, 58, 68)

3. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Financing granted for national projects (Commission Regulation No 2571/97, Art. 23(2)) (see para. 71)

Re:

ACTION for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2006/554/EC of 27 July 2006 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 2006 L 218, p. 12), in so far as it excludes certain expenses incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the sector of concentrated butter in the food industry.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;