ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2009 – REWE‑Zentral v OHIM – Aldi Einkauf (Clina)

(Case T-150/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark Clina – Earlier Community word mark CLINAIR – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 33, 68-69)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2008 (Case R 1484/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG and REWE-Zentral AG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: REWE-Zentral AG Community trade mark sought: Word mark Clina for goods in Classes 3 and 21 – Application No 3921079 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG. Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark CLINAIR for goods in Classes 3 and 5 (Community trade mark No 1769850) Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division’s decision and rejection of the trade mark application





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 April 2010 – Laboratorios Byly v OHIM – Ginis (BILLY’S Products)

(Case T-514/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark BILLY’S Products – Earlier Community and national word marks BYLY and byly – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 22, 62)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2008 (Case R 469/2008-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Byly SA and Vasileios Ginis.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Vasileios Ginis Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark BILLY’S Products for goods in Class 3 – Application No 4215273 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Laboratorios Byly, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word marks BYLY (Application No 156216) for goods in Class 3, and byly (Application No 2604015) for goods in Classes 3 and 5, and services in Class 35 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 September 2008 (Case R 469/2008-2);
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 March 2010 – Inter-Nett 2000 v OHIM – Unión de Agricoltores (HUNAGRO)

(Case T-423/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark HUNAGRO – Earlier Community figurative mark UNIAGRO – Partial refusal to register – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 12 (a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 12 (a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) 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 18, 52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 July 2008 (Case R 71/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Unión de Agricoltores, SA and Inter-Nett 2000 Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Inter-Nett 2000 Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft (Inter-Nett 2000 kft) Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark HUNAGRO for goods and services in Classes 29, 31 and 35 – application No 004508917) Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Unión de Agricultores, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark UNIAGRO for goods in Class 31 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 June 2010 – Kureha v OHIM – Sanofi‑Aventis (KREMEZIN)

(Case T-487/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark KREMEZIN – Earlier international word mark KRENOSIN – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Similarity of the goods – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Proof of existence of the earlier trade mark – Time-limits – Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

1. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Partial use – Effect (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 56-57)

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 68-69, 90)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2008 (Case R 1631/2007‑4), concerning opposition proceedings between Sanofi-Aventis SA and Kureha Corp.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Kureha Corp. Community trade mark sought: Word mark KREMEZIN for goods in Class 5 – Application No 2906501 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sanofi-Aventis SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 529937 of the word mark KRENOSIN for goods in Class 5 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Kureha Corp. to pay its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 July 2010 – Trautwein v OHIM (Representation of a dog)

(Case T-385/08)

Community trade mark – Application for a Community figurative mark representing a dog – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 23, 27-30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of 30 June 2008 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1734/2007-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing a dog.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein GbR, Research and Development Community trade mark sought: Representation of a dog for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 31 – Application No 4829321 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision as regards ‘clothing, footwear and headgear; belts’ in Class 25





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 – Enercon v OHIM – BP (ENERCON)

(Case T-400/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark ENERCON – Earlier Community word mark ENERGOL – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Partial refusal to register

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 22, 34-35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 July 2008 (Case R 957/2006‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between BP plc and Enercon GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Enercon GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark ENERCON for goods in Classes 1, 2 and 4 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: BP plc Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 137828 of the word mark ENERGOL for goods in Classes 1 and 4 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld, save for goods found dissimilar Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed in respect of goods found dissimilar and appeal dismissed as to the remainder





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 September 2010 – Carpent Languages v Commission

(Case T-582/08)

Public service contracts – Community tendering procedure – Organisation of meetings and conferences – Rejection of a tenderer’s bid – Award of the contract to another tenderer – Duty to state reasons – Manifest error of assessment – Equal treatment

1. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see. para. 28)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision, in the procedure for awarding a public services contract, to reject a tender – Assessment having regards to information at the applicant’s disposal at the time the action was brought (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149) (see paras 37-39, 43-46)

3. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons – Manifest error of assessment (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 51)

4. Actions for damages – Independent of actions for annulment – Limits – Identical pleas serving as the basis for both actions (Art. 288 EC) (see paras 84-86)

Re:

ACTION brought against the Commission’s decision of 30 October 2008 rejecting the applicant’s bid for lot No 4 ‘Provision of teams of interpreters according to the linguistic requirements of each event’ of contract notice VT/2008/036 (Multiple framework contracts for meeting and conference organisation services), and the Commission’s decision of 17 November 2008 appointing the successful tenderer of lot No 4, and an application for a declaration that the Commission be ordered to pay damages in the event that the General Court does not grant the application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s bid.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 October 2010 – Umbach v Commission

(Case T-474/08)

Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to a contract concluded under the TACIS programme – Request for access concerning a dispute between the applicant and the Commission before a Belgian civil court – Partial refusal of access – Request for access based on the principles deriving from the EU Treaty – Overriding public interest

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Silence or inaction of an institution – Assimilation to an implied decision of refusal – Not included – Limits (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 35-36)

2. European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents – Concept – Individual interest of the applicant – Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 2(1) and 4(2)) (see paras 56, 58-59, 71)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 September 2008 refusing the applicant access to certain data in documents concerning a contract headed ‘TACIS Service Contract No 98.0414’ relating to assistance in the drafting of an administrative code for the Russian Federation.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2011 – Imagion v OHIM (DYNAMIC HD)

(Case T-463/08)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark DYNAMIC HD – Absolute grounds for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – No distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3)) (see paras 21-22, 34, 42-44)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Exception (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(3)) (see para. 43)

3. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – Aim (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see para. 50)

4. Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – Previous decision-making practice of the Office (see paras 62-64)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 August 2008 (Case R 488/2008-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark DYNAMIC HD as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Imagion AG Community trade mark sought: Word mark DYNAMIC HD for services in Classes 35, 38, 41, 42 and 45 – Application No 6092241 Decision of the examiner: Registration partially refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 18 October 2011 – SLV Elektronik v OHIM – Jiménez Muñoz (LINE)

(Case T-449/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark LINE – Earlier national word and figurative marks Line – Partial refusal to register – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 42, 51-53)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 July 2008 (Case R 759/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Angel Jiménez Muñoz and SLV Elektronik GmbH.

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 18 July 2008 (Case R 759/2007-4) in so far as concerns the goods ‘mains‑operated lights, lighting apparatus and installations, stage effects lighting apparatus; electric lamps; individual parts for the aforesaid goods’ in Class 11;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 September 2011 – Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission

(Case T-34/08)

Financial assistance paid under the Daphne II programme – Determination of the amount to be paid to the beneficiary – Erroneous assessment

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law not set out in the application – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 25-26)

2. Budget of the European Communities – Community financial assistance – Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for granting the aid – Financing covering only expenses actually incurred – Proof of the reality of the expenses declared – None – Expenses ineligible (Art. 274 EC) (see paras 45, 67)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of the Commission's decision of 16 November 2007 concerning the Commission’s partial non-recognition of the costs incurred by the applicant in the context of Daphne Grant Agreement JAI/DAP/2004-2/052/W.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 16 November 2007 concerning its partial non-recognition of the costs incurred by Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV in the context of Daphne Grant Agreement JAI/DAP/2004-2/052/W in so far as concerns the expenses relating to items A6, A39, A40, A41, A43 and E41;
62

Point 403 of the XXIIIrd Report on Competition Policy reads as follows: ‘For the sake of transparency, it is worth reiterating the general principles which the Commission applies to privatisations and which have been built up over the years on the basis of scrutiny of individual cases. As stated in Article 222 [EC], Community law is neutral with respect to the private or public ownership of undertakings. Accordingly, aid that facilitates privatisations may not as such benefit from a derogation from the basic principle of incompatibility of State aid with the common market laid down in Article 92(1). When the privatisation is effected by the sale of shares on the stock exchange, it is generally assumed to be on market conditions and not to involve aid. Before flotation, debt may be written off or reduced without this giving rise to a presumption of aid as long as the proceeds of the flotation exceed the reduction in debt. If the company is privatised not by stock-exchange flotation but by a trade sale, i.e. by sale of the company as a whole or in parts to other companies, the following conditions must be observed if it is to be assumed, without further examination, that no aid is involved: — a competitive tender must be held that is open to all comers, transparent and not conditional on the performance of other acts such as the acquisition of assets other than those bid for or the continued operation of certain businesses; — the company must be sold to the highest bidder; and — bidders must be given enough time and information to carry out a proper valuation of the assets as the basis for their bid. Privatisations by flotation or competitive tender on the above conditions need not be notified to the Commission in advance for examination of aid implications, but Member States may notify if they desire the added legal security of a formal clearance. In other cases, trade sales must be examined for possible aid implications and must therefore be notified. This is so in particular in the following cases: — sales after negotiation with a single prospective purchaser or a number of selected bidders; — those preceded by the writing-off of debt by the State, other public enterprises or any public body; — those preceded by the conversion of debt into equity or capital increases; and — sales on conditions that are not customary in comparable transactions between private parties. In all cases, there must be no discrimination based on the nationality of prospective buyers of the shares or assets concerned. Any sales on terms that cannot be considered normal commercial terms must be preceded by a valuation carried out by independent consultants. Privatisations in sensitive sectors (synthetic fibres, textiles, the motor industry, etc.) must all be notified to the Commission beforehand.’
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 December 2011 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-39/08)

Public service contracts – Tendering procedure – Provision of information technology services relating to the hosting, management, enhancement, promotion and maintenance of an internet portal – Rejection of a tender and award of the contract to another tenderer – Selection criteria – Award criteria – Non‑contractual liability

1. European Union public contracts – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Criteria for selecting candidates – Assessment of the candidates’ capacity to provide specified services – Award criteria – Comparative assessment of the particular characteristics and merits of individual tenders – Application of a criterion for assessing the capacity of the candidates to perform a contract during the contract attribution phase – Not permissible (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 97(1) and (2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 138) (see paras 17-24, 38-40, 42)

2. European Union public contracts – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions (see paras 21, 47)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Burden of proof – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 45-47)

Re:

First, application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 12 November 2007 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in open call for tenders EAC/04/07 relating to the hosting, management, improvement, promotion and maintenance of the Commission’s internet portal for ‘e-learning’ (elearningeuropa.info) (OJ 2007 S 87), and awarding the contract to another tenderer, and, second, application for damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the Commission Decision of 12 November 2007 rejecting the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in open call for tenders EAC/04/07 relating to the hosting, management, enhancement, promotion and maintenance of the European Commission’s internet portal on eLearning (elearningeuropa.info), and awarding the contract to another tenderer;

2. Dismisses the application for damages;