ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T‑142/08)

‛Languages — Notices of open competition for the recruitment of administrators and assistants — Full publication in three official languages — Information concerning the notices of open competitions — Publication in all official languages — Language of the tests — Choice of second language from three official languages’

1. Officials — Competitions — Notice of open competition — Publication in full in the Official Journal only in some official languages and brief notice in all languages — Not permissible — Discrimination based on language — Breach of principle of proportionality (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 21; Staff Regulations, Art. 1 quinquies, (1) and (6); Annex III, Art. 1(2); Council Regulation No 1, Art. 5) (see paras 24-30)

2. Officials — Competitions — Running of an open competition — Languages of participation in tests — Equal treatment — Requirement of specific linguistic knowledge — Statement of reasons — Justification having regard to the interests of the service — Observance of the principle of proportionality (Staff Regulations, Arts 1 quinquies, (1) and (6), 27, first para., 28(f); Annex III, Art. 1(1)(f); Council Regulation No 1, Art. 1) (see paras 35-41)

3. Actions brought by officials — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Annulment of a notice of open competition — Legitimate expectations of the candidates selected — Results of the competition not called into question (Art. 266 TFEU; Staff Regulations, Art. 91) (see paras 50, 51)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 to constitute a reserve list of Administrators (AD 8) and Principal Administrators (AD 11) in the field of fraud prevention and Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/45/08 to constitute a reserve list of Assistants (AST 4) in the field of fraud prevention (OJ 2008 C16A, pp. 1 and 16 respectively) on the ground that they were published in French, English and German only.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 to constitute a reserve list of Administrators (AD 8) and Principal Administrators (AD 11) in the field of fraud prevention and EPSO/AST/45/08 to constitute a reserve list of Assistants (AST 4) in the same field, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union on 23 January 2008;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 13 May 2009 – Schuhpark Fascies v OHIM – Leder & Schuh (jello SCHUHPARK)

(Case T-183/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative and word mark jello SCHUHPARK – Earlier national word mark Schuhpark – Relative ground for refusal – Proof of use of earlier mark – Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 20-24)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2008 (Case R 1560/2006-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Schuhpark Fascies GmbH and Leder & Schuh AG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Leder & Schuh AG Community trade mark sought: Word and figurative mark jello SCHUHPARK for goods in Classes 1, 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24 to 26 and 28 – Application No 1269372 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Schuhpark Fascies GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark Schuhpark for goods in Class 25 and, in that respect, the opposition was directed against registration in Classes 18, 21, 25 and 26 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part and application for registration rejected in part Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the appealed decision and rejection of the opposition





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Schuhpark Fascies GmbH to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 24 January 2017 — Rath v EUIPO — Portela & Ca. (Diacor)

(Case T‑258/08)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Diacor — Earlier national figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Evidence in a language other than the language of the proceedings — Rule 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Rule 22(6) of Regulation No 2868/95, as amended) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

1. EU trade mark—Observations of third parties and opposition—Examination of the opposition—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Partial use—Effect—Concept of ‘parts of the products or services’ covered by the registration (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 34, 35)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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—Assessment of the likelihood of confusion—Determination of the relevant public—Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 49)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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—Similarity between the goods or services in question—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 51)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment—Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 53, 55-57, 66)

5. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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—Word mark Diacor and figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 69-74)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2008 (Case R 1630/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Portela & Ca. and Mr Rath.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 – Biotronik v OHIM (BioMonitor)

(Case T-257/08)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark BioMonitor – 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 22, 30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2008 (Case R 466/2007‑4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign BioMonitor as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Biotronik GmbH & Co. KG Community trade mark sought: Word mark ‘BioMonitor’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 10 and 38, the list of goods being subsequently limited to goods in Class 10 – Application No 4556023 Decision of the Examiner: Application rejected 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 19 November 2009 – Clearwire v OHIM (CLEARWIFI)

(Case T-399/08)

Community trade mark – International registration designating the European Community – Word mark CLEARWIFI – 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 27, 50-51)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2008 (R 706/2008‑1) concerning the international registration, designating the European Community, of the sign CLEARWIFI.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Clearwire Corporation Community trade mark sought: Word mark CLEARWIFI for services in Class 38 (international Registration No W00934594) Decision of the examiner: Application rejected 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 20 October 2009 – Aldi Einkauf v OHIM – Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones (4 OUT Living)

(Case T-307/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for figurative Community mark 4 OUT Living – Earlier national figurative mark Living & Co – 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 19-21, 32-33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2008 (Case R 1199/2007‑1) relating to opposition proceedings between Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones, SL and Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark 4 OUT Living for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 28 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration of the figurative mark Living & Co (No 2604969) for goods and services in Classes 3, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 34 and 35 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2010 – G-Star Raw Denim v OHIM – ESGW (G Stor)

(Case T-309/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark G Stor – Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks G-STAR and G-STAR RAW DENIM – Relative ground for refusal – Absence of similarity between the marks – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) 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 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 25, 36, 38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2008 (R 1232/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between G‑Star Raw Denim kft and ESGW Holdings Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: ESWG Holdings Ltd Community trade mark sought: The figurative mark ‘G Stor’ for goods in Class 9 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: G-Star Raw Denim kft Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux trade mark registration No 545551 of the word mark ‘G‑STAR’ for goods in Class 25; Community trade mark registration No 3445401 of the word/figurative mark ‘G‑STAR’ for goods in Classes 9 and 25; Community trade mark registration No 3444262 of the word mark ‘G‑Star’ for goods in Classes 9 and 25; earlier well‑known trade mark ‘G‑Star’ protected in various countries for goods in Class 25; Community trade mark registration No 3444171 of the mark ‘G‑STAR RAW DENIM’ for goods in Classes 9 and 35; Netherlands trade name G‑Star International BV Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld; application dismissed in its entirety Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled; opposition dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 – Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche v Commission

(Case T-64/08)

State aid – Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest – Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Concept of advantage – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Aid measure put into effect

1. State aid – Concept – Compensation awarded for expropriation of assets – Not included (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 57, 60, 63, 72, 74, 99, 101)

2. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Administrative procedure – Obligation on the Commission to put the parties concerned on notice to submit their observations – Right of the aid beneficiary to be sufficiently associated with the proceedings – Limits (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 161-163, 166-168)

3. EU Law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Whether applicable to administrative procedures initiated by the Commission – Examination of plans to grant aid – Scope (Art. 88(2) EC) (see para. 189)

4. State aid – Planned aid – Notification to the Commission – Scope of the obligation – Need to notify aid measures at the draft stage (Art. 88(3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 2 and 3) (see paras 228-230, 234-236)

5. State aid – Commission decision finding aid unlawful and ordering its recovery – Aid not yet paid (Art. 88(3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras 239, 241, 250-251)

6. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Aid granted in breach of the procedural rules of Article 88 EC – Possible legitimate expectation on the part of the beneficiaries – Protection – Conditions and limits (Art. 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras 269-271, 275-276)

7. State aid – Commission decision not to raise objections to a national measure – Legitimate expectation of the beneficiary that an extension of the said measure is lawful – None (Art. 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras 283-284, 288)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/408/EC of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2010 – Grain Millers v OHIM – Grain Millers (GRAIN MILLERS)

(Case T-430/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark GRAIN MILLERS – Earlier national business name Grain Millers and its figurative representation – Partial refusal of registration – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade – Use of the sign in trade – Meaning (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(4)) (see para. 28)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2008 (Case R 478/2007‑2), concerning opposition proceedings between Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG and Grain Millers, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Grain Millers, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark GRAIN MILLERS for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 31 – application No 365 0256 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG Mark or sign cited in opposition: German business designation GRAIN MILLERS and its figurative version Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed in part Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed in part





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 28 September 2010 – Market Watch v OHIM – Ares Trading (Seroslim)

(Case T-201/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark Seroslim – Earlier Community word mark SEROSTIM – 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 23-24, 49)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2008 (Case R 805/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Ares Trading SA and Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark Seroslim for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 – Application No 4113321 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ares Trading SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark SEROSTIM for goods in Class 5 (Community trade mark No 2405694) Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in respect to all the goods in Class 5 and in respect of ‘soaps, hair lotions and dentifrices’ in Class 3 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011 – Kwang Yang Motor v OHIM – Honda Giken Kogyo (internal combustion engine)

(Case T-11/08)

Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing an internal combustion engine – Earlier national design – Ground for invalidity – No individual character – Visible features of a component part of a complex product – No different overall impression – Informed user – Degree of freedom of the designer – Articles 4, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002

1. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Informed user – Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 6(1)) (see paras 23-27)

2. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Representation of an internal combustion engine (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 4(2), 6)(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 38, 43, 45)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of 8 October 2007 of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1380/2006-3), relating to invalidity proceedings for Community designs between Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha and Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 January 2012 – Indo Internacional v OHIM – Visual (VISUAL MAP)

(Case T-260/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark VISUAL MAP – Earlier national word mark VISUAL – 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25-30, 42-47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 (Case R 700/2007‑1), concerning opposition proceedings between Visual SA and Indo Internacional, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2012 — Mustang v OHIM – Decathlon (Wavy line)

(Case T‑379/08)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a figurative Community mark representing a wavy line — Earlier national and international figurative trade marks representing a white wavy line on a black background — 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 26-28, 56-59)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2008 (Case R 859/2007-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Decathlon SA and Mustang – Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG.

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 paras 19, 26

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 802/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Accenture Global Services GmbH and Silver Creek Properties SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Accenture Global Services GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 46, 50-60, 79-82, 85

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought by the Commission under Article 238 EC seeking an order that Antiche Terre reimburse the sums paid by the Community in performance of contract no BM/188/96 of 23 December 1996, concluded with three companies, including Antiche Terre, under the Thermie programme.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Antiche Terre Soc. Coop. rl Società Agricola to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 479 332.40, together with late-payment interest at the Italian statutory rate, calculated in accordance with the rates applicable from 4 January 2004 until payment in full of the debt, after deduction of the sum of EUR 461 979 recovered by the Commission following the implementation on 25 January 2005 of the bank guarantee of which it was beneficiary;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders Antiche Terre to pay the costs.