ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 – Groupe Gascogne v Commission

(Case T-72/06)

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Plastic industrial bags sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Imputability of the unlawful conduct – Fines – Maximum limit of 10% of turnover – Proportionality

1. Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Annulment of a Commission decision finding a breach of the competition rules – Effects in relation to addressees not having brought an action – None (Arts 81 EC, 230 EC and 249 EC) (see para. 20)

2. Procedure – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions – Pleas based on matters which have come to light in the course of the procedure – Entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon – New fact justifying the introduction of a complaint based on infringement of the presumption of innocence – Not included (Art. 6 TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2)) (see paras 27-30)

3. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‑owned subsidiaries – Evidential obligations of a company seeking to rebut that presumption (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 66-71, 92)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Maximum amount – Calculation – Turnover to be taken into consideration – Cumulative turnover of all the companies constituting the economic unit acting as an undertaking – No obligation on the Commission to demonstrate lack of autonomy on the part of each of the subsidiaries of the group (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 106-115)

5. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Determination of the fine in proportion to the factors for assessment of the gravity of the infringement (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 128, 130-131)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 – Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and application for amendment of that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 para. 49

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2006 (Case R 294/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Leche Celta, SL and Celia SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Leche Celta, SL 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 composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 31-35

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 April 2007 (Case R 1611/2006-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark PRANAHAUS as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>13

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Prana Haus GmbH 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 24, 32

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 May 2007 (Case R 1640/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between VKR Holding A/S and Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV.

Information relating to the case

>lt>18

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Budget of the European Communities – Community financial assistance – Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for the grant of assistance (see para. 71)

2. Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC; Council Decision 94/571) (see paras 74, 82, 90-91, 99-101)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 238 EC seeking to obtain repayment of the balance of the advance paid by the European Community, plus late-payment interest thereon, in the framework of the contract BRST-CT-98-5452, and the payment of damages with interest.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders B2 Test SA to repay to the Commission the principal sum of EUR 43 437.94, increased by late-payment interest at the statutory annual rate applicable in France, from 31 July 2002 until the debt has been paid in full;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders B2 Test to pay the costs.
Joined Cases T-114/07 and T-115/07

Last Minute Network Ltd

v

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

‛Community trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Community figurative mark LAST MINUTE TOUR — Earlier unregistered national mark LASTMINUTE.COM — Relative ground for refusal — Reference to the national law governing the earlier mark — Action for passing off — Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber), 11 June 2009 II ‐ 1921

Summary of the Judgment

Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds of invalidity

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 8(4) and 52(1)(c))

According to Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade, a Community trade mark is to be declared invalid on application to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) where there is an earlier right as referred to in Article 8(4) and the conditions set out in that paragraph are fulfilled.

It is clear from the combination of those two provisions that the proprietor of a non-registered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade of more than mere local significance may obtain the cancellation of a more recent Community trade mark where and in so far as, according to the law of the Member State governing that sign, the rights over that sign were acquired before the date on which the application for the Community trade mark was filed and that sign gives its proprietor the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent mark.

For the purposes of the application of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94, the Board of Appeal must take into consideration both the national legislation applicable by virtue of the reference made by that provision and the judicial decisions delivered in the Member State concerned. On that basis, the applicant for a declaration of invalidity must establish that the sign at issue falls within the scope of the law of the Member State relied on and that it enables the use of a subsequent mark to be prohibited.

(see paras 45-47)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 — Offshore Legends v OHIM — Acteon (OFFSHORE LEGENDS in black and white and OFFSHORE LEGENDS in blue, black and green)

(Joined Cases T-305/07 and T-306/07)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for two Community figurative marks OFFSHORE LEGENDS, one in black and white, the other in blue, black and green — Earlier national figurative mark OFFSHORE 1 — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods and signs — Absence of request for proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 in conjunction with Article 15(2)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) and point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009’

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 60, 61, 98-103)

Re:

Two actions brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1031/2006-2 and Case R 1038/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Acteon and Offshore Legends.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Offshore Legends Community trade mark sought: Figurative marks OFFSHORE LEGENDS in black and white and OFFSHORE LEGENDS in blue, black and green for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 20, 24, 25, 28 and 35 — Application Nos 3160231 and 2997021 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Acteon Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and international figurative mark OFFSHORE 1 for products in Classes 16, 18 and 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed in respect of all the contested goods Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division, to the extent that it dismissed the opposition in respect of products in Classes 18 and 25

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 — GlaxoSmithkline and Others v OHIM — Serono Genetics Institute (FAMOXIN)

(Cases T-493/07, T-26/08 and T-27/08)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark FAMOXIN — Earlier national word marks LANOXIN — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Proof of use — Article 56(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009’

Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds of invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 52(1)(a)) (see paras 50-57, 73-76)

Re:

Three actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 September 2007 (Case R 8/2007-1), 20 November 2007 (Case R 10/2007-1) and 19 November 2007 (Case R 9/2007-1), relating to cancellation proceedings between, on the one hand, GlaxoSmithkline SpA, Laboratórios Wellcome De Portugal Lda and The Wellcome Foundation Ltd, and, on the other, Serono Genetics Institute SA.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: Community word mark FAMOXIN for goods and services in Class 5 — Application No 2491298 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Serono Genetics Institute SA Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: GlaxoSmithkline SpA; Laboratórios Wellcome de Portugal, Lda; and The Wellcome Foundation Ltd Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: National word mark LANOXIN for goods in Class 5 Decision of the Cancellation Division: Applications dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeals dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-493/07, T-26/08 and T-27/08 for the purposes of the present judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Determination of the normal value – Imports from countries not having a market economy as referred to in Article 2(7)(b) of Regulation No 384/96 – Application of rules relating to countries with a market economy – Application reserved for producers satisfying the cumulative conditions set out in Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation No 384/96 – Group of companies (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 2(7)) (see paras 84-85)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Regulations imposing anti-dumping duties (Art. 253 EC) (see para. 96)

3. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see paras 111-112)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicants.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Apache Footwear Ltd and Apache II Footwear Ltd (Qingxin) to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission, the Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC), BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas and the 16 other interveners whose names are listed in the Annex to bear their own 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 50-52

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 October 2007 (Case R 1425/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between The McKenzie Corporation Ltd and IIC – Intersport International Corp. GmbH.

Operative part

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders IIC-Intersport International Corp. GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Accession of new Member States to the Communities — 2003 Act of Accession — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures concerning trade in agricultural products — Assessment of excess stocks — Attenuation of the obligation to eliminate excess stocks (2003 Act of Accession, Annex IV, Section 4(2); Commission Regulation No 1972/2003) (see para. 30)

2. Accession of new Member States to the Communities — 2003 Act of Accession — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures concerning trade in agricultural products — Elimination by new Member States of their excess stocks — Concept — Commission’s margin of discretion (2003 Act of Accession, Annex IV, Section 4(2)) (see paras 40-48)

3. Accession of new Member States to the Communities — 2003 Act of Accession — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures concerning trade in agricultural products — Duty of new Member States to eliminate their excess stocks — Commission decision imposing a payment obligation not designed to cover the costs of eliminating surpluses from the internal market — Incompatibility with Annex IV, Section 4(2) of the Act of Accession — Annulment (2003 Act of Accession, Annex IV, Section 4(2)) (see paras 49-52, 74-76, 78-79)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing legal effects – Commission decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure on a State measure in the course of implementation accompanied by provisional classification as new aid – Actionable measure – Commission decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure on the same measures as those having formed the subject-matter of an earlier decision to initiate the procedure – Inadmissibility where the first procedure not concluded

(Arts 87(1) EC, 88(2) and (3) EC and 230 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 7)

Summary

Only a measure the legal effects of which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is an act or decision against which an action for annulment may be brought under Article 230 EC. That is the case of a decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure into State aid, where the Commission classifies a measure in the course of implementation as new State aid, both when the authorities of the Member State concerned consider that it is existing aid and when they dispute that it falls within the scope of Article 87(1) EC.

A decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation to a measure in the course of implementation and classified by the Commission as new aid necessarily alters the legal implications of the measure under consideration and the legal position of the recipient firms, particularly as regards the continued implementation of that measure. Such a decision might also be invoked before a national court called upon to draw all the consequences arising from infringement of the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC. Finally, it is capable of leading the firms which are beneficiaries of the measure to refuse in any event new payments or new advantages or to hold the necessary sums as provision for possible subsequent financial compensations. Businesses will also take account, in their relations with those beneficiaries, of the uncertainty cast on the legal and financial situation of the latter.

In contrast, such a decision is not capable of giving rise to independent legal effects and cannot therefore constitute a decision against which an action for annulment may be brought since it concerns the same measures as those which formed the subject-matter of the earlier decision to initiate the procedure, in so far as the formal investigation procedure for those measures is not terminated, and that, in the context of that procedure, the Commission had already stated that the disputed measures could fall within the scope of the prohibition of Article 87(1) EC.

In such a case, the independent legal effects attached to a formal investigation procedure were already produced following the first decision to initiate the procedure.

(see paras 49-51, 61, 63)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 4 July 2008 – Entrance Services v Parliament

(Case T-333/07)

Public service contracts – Community call for tenders procedure – Repair and maintenance of automatic equipment, joinery and similar equipment in European Parliament buildings in Brussels – Rejection of a tender – Serious error in professional matters – Article 93 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002

European Communities’ public procurement – Tendering procedure (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 93(1)(c) and 94; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 133) (see paras 59-77)

Re:

ANNULMENT of the decision of the Parliament rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant and awarding the contract to another tenderer in the call for tenders procedure concerning the repair and maintenance of automatic equipment, joinery and similar equipment in European Parliament buildings in Brussels.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Parliament rejecting the applicant’s tender and awarding the contract to another tenderer in the call for tenders procedure concerning the repair and maintenance of automatic equipment, joinery and similar equipment in European Parliament buildings in Brussels;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 12 November 2008 – ecoblue v OHIM – Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (Ecoblue)

(Case T-281/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark Ecoblue – Earlier Community word mark BLUE – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion − Similarity of the 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 paras 24-25, 37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2007 (Case R 844/2006-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA and ecoblue AG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: ecoblue AG Community trade mark sought: Word mark Ecoblue for services in Classes 35, 36 and 38 – Application No 2871598 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA Marks or signs cited in support of the opposition: Word marks BLUE (Community mark No 1345974), BLUE JOVEN (Community mark No 2065100), BLUE BBVA (Community mark No 2065621), TARJETA BLUE BBVA (Community mark No 2277291), QNTAME BLUE (Community mark No 2391878), HIPOTECA BLUE (Community mark No 2392181), HIPOTECA BLUE JOVEN (Community mark No 2794998) and MOTOR BLUE JOVEN (Community mark No 3060878) for goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 38 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and registration refused 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 16 September 2008 – ratiopharm v OHIM (BioGeneriX)

(Case T-48/07)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark BioGeneriX – Absolute ground for refusal – Partially descriptive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (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 21, 25-27, 37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 December 2006 (Case R 1048/2004-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BioGeneriX as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: ratiopharm GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark BioGenerix for goods in Classes 1 and 5 – Application No 1603124 Decision of the Opposition Division: Registration partially refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





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 20 December 2006 (Case R 1048/2004-4), in so far as chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs, falling within Class 1, are concerned;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;