ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Budget of the European Communities – Community financial assistance – Duty of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for granting the assistance (see para. 38)

2. Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC; Council Decision 91/394) (see paras 48, 58, 65, 70-71, 78, 81)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION under Article 238 EC claiming that the defendant should be ordered to repay part of the advance payments made by the Community, together with default interest, because of failure to comply with certain contractual obligations.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Premium SA to pay to the Commission the principal sum of EUR 57 605.74, together with default interest:

– at the rate of 3.36% per annum for the period from 1 October to 31 December 1998;

– at the rate of 3.47% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 1999;

– at the rate of 2.74% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2000;

– at the rate of 4.26% per annum for the period from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2002;

– at the rate of 3.29% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2003;

– at the rate of 2.27% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2004;

– at the rate of 2.05% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2005;

– at the rate of 2.11% per annum for the period from 1 January 2006 to the date of the present judgment;

– at the rate applicable under French law for the period from the date of the present judgment to that of final settlement of the principal sum;

2. Orders Premium to pay to the Commission the principal sum of EUR 30 988.74, together with default interest:

– at the rate of 3.95% per annum for the period from 1 October to 31 December 1998;

– at the rate of 2.85% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 1999;

– at the rate of 3.6% per annum for the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001;

– at the rate of 2.95% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2002;

– at the rate of 2.15% per annum for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2004;

– at the rate of 2.4% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2005;

– at the rate of 2.5% per annum for the period from 1 January 2006 to the date of the present judgment;

– at the rate applicable under Danish law for the period from the date of the present judgment to that of final settlement of the principal sum;

3. Orders Premium 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 27, 73

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2006 (Case R 865/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Navisa Industrial Vinícola Española, SA and Miguel Torres, SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Miguel Torres SA to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 8 July 2009 — Zenab v Commission

(Case T-33/06)

‛Community financial support — Programme to encourage the development, distribution and promotion of European audiovisual works (MEDIA Plus) — Call for proposals — Rejection of the proposal — Alleged unlawful delegation of powers transferred to the Commission — Manifest errors of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Access to documents — Action for annulment and for compensation’

1. Culture — Community Programmes — MEDIA Plus Programme (Council Decision 2000/821, Arts 8(2) and 10) (see paras 58-75, 94-128)

2. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law (see para. 76)

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision refusing the grant of financial assistance under a programme for encouraging the development and distribution of European audiovisual works(Art. 253 EC) (see paras 137-155)

4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 162-163)

Re:

ACTION, first, for annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 9 November 2005 with reference number 648599 and, secondly, for a finding that the European Community is non-contractually liable, for an order that the Commission should pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 37807 as compensation for the costs incurred in the context of the call for proposals, the amount of the non-material loss because of damage to reputation and the amount of the material loss resulting from the delay in the implementation of the EuroVOD project, and for the appointment of an expert to assess that loss.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Council Regulation No 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c), and No 1258/1999, Art. 7(4)) (see paras 42-43, 65-66, 71)

2. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Regulation laying down specific control measures (see para. 48)

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing (Council Regulation No 404/93, Art. 12(1), and No 1258/1999, Art. 8(1); Commission Regulation No 2257/94 and No 2898/95, Art. 7(3)) (see para. 53)

Subject of the case

Re:

PARTIAL ANNULMENT 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 provides for a financial correction applicable to expenses declared by the Kingdom of Spain pursuant to compensatory aid for banana producers for the financial years 2002 and 2003.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2009 — FAB v Commission

(Case T-8/06)

‛State aid — Digital terrestrial television — Aid granted by the German authorities to broadcasters which use the digital terrestrial television network (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Action for annulment — Meaning of State aid — State resources — Compensation for discharging public service obligations — Aid intended to promote culture — Legitimate expectations’

1. State aid — Concept — Aid granted to private broadcasters to facilitate the changeover to digital terrestrial television without a public tendering procedure or call for tenders — Included (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 48-58)

2. Competition — Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest — Definition of services of general economic interest (Art. 86(2) EC) (see paras 63, 64)

3. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review (Art. 87(3) EC) (see paras 77, 78)

4. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Possible legitimate expectation on the part of the recipient (Art. 88 EC) (see paras 92, 93)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/513/EC of 9 November 2005 on the State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 14).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition – Administrative procedure – Observance of the rights of the defence – Access to the file – Scope – Non-communication of an incriminating document – Consequences varying in accordance with the importance of the document having regard to the burden of proof on the Commission (see paras 30-32)

2. 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 para. 47-49)

3. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements between undertakings – Burden of proof – Statement of an incriminated undertaking challenged by other undertakings party to the same agreement – Probative value – Assessment (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 50)

4. 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. 51)

5. 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 paras 86-88)

6. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances – Passive or ‘follow-my-leader’ role of the undertaking – Criteria for assessment (Commission Communication 98/C 9/03) (see paras 98-99)

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 applicants in that decision.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1 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) in so far as it relates to the period from 30 July 1996 to 31 July 1997 as regards the participation of Kaimer GmbH & Co. Holding KG and Sanha Kaimer GmbH & Co. KG and the period from 1 January 1998 to 14 July 1999 as regards the participation of Sanha Italia Srl;

2. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Kaimer at EUR 7.15 million, in respect of which it is jointly and severally liable with Sanha Kaimer as to EUR 7.15 million and with Sanha Italia as to EUR 6.325 million;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders Kaimer, Sanha Kaimer and Sanha Italia to bear their own costs and to pay 50% of the costs of the European Commission;

5. Orders the Commission to bear 50% of its own costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof — Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (Council Regulations No 729/70 and No 1258/1999) (see paras 31, 72, 94‑97)

2. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject matter of the dispute — Summary statement of pleas (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 35‑38, 78)

3. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of Community rules — Introduction of an adjustment of the disallowance by reference to the risk created for the EAGGF by the seriousness of the failure to act attributable to the national control authorities — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof (see para. 42)

4. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Accounts clearance procedure — Conciliation procedure — Opinion of the conciliation body — No binding effect (see para. 45)

5. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Limitation of refusal of financing — Twenty-four month period — Point from which time starts to run — Communication by the Commission of the results of verifications — Content (Council Regulations No 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c), and No 1258/1999, Art. 7(4), fifth para.; Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 50‑52)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 – Philip Morris Products v OHIM (Shape of a packet of cigarettes)

(Case T-140/06)

Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark – Shape of a packet of cigarettes – Refusal of registration – Absolute grounds for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26-27)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), of 24 February 2006, (Case R 0075/2005-4) concerning registration of the shape of a packet of cigarettes as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Philip Morris Products SA Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional mark representing a packet of cigarettes for goods in Class 34 – Application No 2681351 Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 30 January 2008 – Japan Tobacco v OHIM – Torrefacção Camelo (CAMELO)

(Case T-128/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for the Community figurative mark CAMELO – Earlier national figurative mark CAMEL – Relative ground for refusal – No risk of profit derived unduly from, and no risk of detriment to, the distinctive character and reputation of the earlier mark – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – No infringement of the rules of the appeal procedure – Article 74 of Regulation 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 enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 56-66)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 February 2006 (Case R 669/2003‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Japan Tobacco, Inc. and Torrefacção Camelo L da .

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Torrefacção Camelo Lda Community trade mark sought: Mark containing figurative elements (camel, pyramids, palm trees) and the name CAFÉ TORREFACTO CAMPO MAIOR CAMELO CAFÉ ESPECIAL PURO Torrefacção Camelo Lda CAMPO MAIOR-PORTUGAL, for goods in Class 30 – Application No 1469121 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Japan Tobacco, Inc. Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark CAMEL for goods in Classes 22 and 34 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division set aside





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Japan Tobacco, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM);
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 21 November 2007 – Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM – Lidl Stiftung (VITAL FIT)

(Case T-111/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark VITAL FIT – Earlier national word mark VITAFIT – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Right to a fair hearing – Obligation to state reasons

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 39, 42, 45-47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 February 2006 in Case R 3/2005-2 relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark VITAL FIT for goods in Class 32 – Application No 1457951 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark VITAFIT for goods in Class 32 – Application No 1050163 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 Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2008 – Audi v OHIM (Vorsprung durch Technik)

(Case T-70/06)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark Vorsprung durch Technik – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Partial refusal to register the mark by the examiner – Right to a fair hearing

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 41-46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2005 (Case R 237/2005-2) dismissing in part the appeal against the examiner’s decision refusing registration of the word mark Vorsprung durch Technik for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 25, 28, 37 to 40 and 42.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Audi AG Community trade mark sought: Word mark Vorsprung durch Technik for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35 to 43 and 45 – Application No 3016292 Decision of the examiner: Registration partially dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal partially dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 22 May 2008 – Radio Regenbogen Hörfunk in Baden v OHIM (RadioCom)

(Case T-254/06)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark RadioCom – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 40, 45, 48, 51, 54)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 July 2006 (Case R 1266/2005‑1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark RadioCom as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Radio Regenbogen Hörfunk in Baden Geschäftsführungs-GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark RadioCom for services in Classes 35, 38 and 41 – Application No 3986023 Decision of the examiner: 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 (Seventh Chamber) of 23 October 2008 – Adobe v OHIM (FLEX)

(Case T-158/06)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark FLEX – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 45, 47-48, 56-57)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 April 2006 (Case R 1430/2005-2) concerning registration of the Community trade mark FLEX No 3795011.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Adobe Systems Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark FLEX for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 – Application No 3795011 Decision of the examiner: Refusal of registration Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal partially dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2008 – giropay v OHIM (GIROPAY)

(Case T-399/06)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark GIROPAY – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 27-28, 36-40, 43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 October 2006 (Case R 308/2005-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark GIROPAY as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Giropay GmbH Community trade mark sought: Work mark GIROPAY for goods in Classes 9, 36 to 38 and 42 – Application No 2843514 Decision of the Examiner’s Division: Registration partially refused 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 23 September 2009 – Phildar v OHIM – Comercial Jacinto Parera (FILDOR)

(Case T-99/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark FILDOR – Earlier national semi-figurative mark PHILDAR – Earlier national word mark FILDOR – Earlier international word and semi-figurative marks PHILDAR – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Articles 8(1)(b), 62 and 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 8(1)(b), 64 and 75 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, 68-85)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2006 (Case R 245/2004‑2) relating to opposition proceedings between Phildar SA and Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA Community trade mark sought: Word mark FILDOR for goods in Classes 22 to 26 – Application No 831834 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Phildar SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and international word and figurative marks FILDOR and PHILDAR for goods in Classes 22 to 26 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division’s decision





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 16 January 2006 (Case R 245/2004‑2);