ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/35

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2010 — Kureha Corp v OHIM — Sanofi-Aventis (KREMEZIN)

(Case T-487/08) (1)

(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))

2010/C 209/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kureha Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: W. von der Osten-Sacken and O. Sude, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sanofi-Aventis SA (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Gilbey, lawyer)

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.

Operative part of the judgment

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);

3. Orders Sanofi-Aventis SA to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Now Pharm v Commission

(Case T-74/08) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Orphan Designation Procedure - Request for designation of the medicinal product ‘Chelidonii radix special liquid extract’ (‘Ukrain’) as an orphan medicinal product - Commission decision refusing designation as an orphan medicinal product)

(2010/C 288/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Now Pharm AG (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: initially C. Kaletta and I.-J. Tegebauer and subsequently C. Kaletta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 6132, of 4 December 2007 refusing the designation of the medicinal product ‘Chelidonii radix special liquid extract’ as an orphan medicinal product under Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders Now Pharm AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/31

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — M v EMA

(Case T-12/08 P-RENV-RX) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Review of the judgment of the General Court - Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given)

2010/C 234/53

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: M (Browbourne, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: V. Salvatore and N. Rampal Olmedo, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 October 2007 in Case F-23/07 M v EMEA (not yet published in the ECR), seeking to have that order set aside

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1. Refers the case back to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal for it to rule on the claim for compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by Mr M;

2. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/35

Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2010 — Tresplain Investments v OHIM — Hoo Hing (Golden Elephant Brand)

(Case T-303/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community trade mark Golden Elephant Brand - Non-registered national figurative mark GOLDEN ELEPHANT - Relative ground for refusal - Reference to the national law governing the earlier mark - Common-law action for passing-off - Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) - Articles 8(4) and 52(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Articles 8(4) and 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009) - New pleas in law - Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure)

2011/C 30/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tresplain Investments Ltd (Tsing Yi, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd (Romford, Essex, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2008 (Case R 889/2007-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd and Tresplain Investments Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Rejects the form of order sought by Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd for partial annulment and alteration of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 May 2008 (Case R 889/2007-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Hoo Hing Holdings and Tresplain Investments Ltd;

3. Orders Tresplain Investments to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM and one half of those incurred by Hoo Hing Holdings, and orders Hoo Hing Holdings to bear half of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 317/26

Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2010 — Interflon v OHIM — Illinois Tool Works (FOODLUBE)

(Case T-200/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community trade mark FOODLUBE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 317/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Interflon BV (Rosendaal, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Wertwijn, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Illinois Tool Works, Inc. (Glenview, Illinois, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2008 (Case R 638/2007-2) concerning invalidity proceedings between Interflon BV and Illinois Tool Works, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

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 3 March 2008 (Case R 638/2007-2) in so far as it dismisses the appeal with regard to chemicals used in industry in Class 1, and industrial oils and greases and lubricants in Class 4;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/12

Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-589/08) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of IT and user support services relating to the Community emissions trading scheme - Rejection of bid - Award criteria - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment - Transparency)

2011/C 113/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, P. Katsimani and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

Re:

First, application for the annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 13 October 2008, rejecting the bids submitted by the applicant for each of the three lots relating to open invitation to tender DG ENV.C2/FRA/2008/0017 ‘Framework contract for Emission Trading Scheme — CITL/CR’ (2008/S 72-096229) and to award those contracts to another tenderer and, secondly, claim for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/10

Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Representation of a small bell with a red ribbon)

(Case T-346/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Representation of a small bell with a red ribbon - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 46/17

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Lange, E. Schalast and G. Hild, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 June 2008 (Case R 943/2007-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the representation of a small bell with a red ribbon.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/24

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Team Relocations and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-204/08 and T-212/08) (1)

(Competition - Cartels - International removal services market in Belgium - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing - Market-sharing - Bid rigging - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability of the infringement - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

2011/C 226/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Team Relocations NV (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers) (Case T-204/08); Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd (London, United Kingdom); Trans Euro Ltd (London); and Team Relocations Ltd (London) (represented by: L. Gyselen, lawyer) (Case T-212/08)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, A. Antoniadis and N. von Lingen, Agents)

Re:

Application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services), and, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Team Relocations NV, Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd, Trans Euro Ltd and Team Relocations Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 186/19

Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2011 — Elf Aquitaine v Commission

(Case T-299/08) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in sodium chlorate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA - Imputability of the infringement - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle that penalties must fit the offence - Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis - Presumption of innocence - Principle of sound administration - Principle of legal certainty - Misuse of powers - Fines - Aggravating circumstance - Deterrence - Mitigating circumstance - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Significant added value)

2011/C 186/35

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Elf Aquitaine SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis, É. Gippini Fournier and R. Sauer, Agents)

Re:

Principally, action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) (Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate), in so far as that decision relates to Elf Aquitaine and, in the alternative, action for annulment or reduction of the amounts of the fines imposed on that company in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Elf Aquitaine SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 340/16

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — Galileo Sistemas y Servicios (GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS)

(Case T-488/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ‘GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS’ - Earlier Community word marks ‘GALILEO’ - Earlier Community figurative mark ‘powered by Galileo’ - Earlier Community figurative marks ‘GALILEO INTERNATIONAL’ - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 340/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Galileo International Technology LLC (Bridgetown, Barbados) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, M. Blair and K. Gilbert, Solicitors)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño and P. Bullock, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Galileo Sistemas y Servicios, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 403/2006-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Galileo International Technology, LLC and Galileo Sistemas y Servicios, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Galileo International Technology, LLC to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/14

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — NEC Display Solutions Europe v OHIM — C More Entertainment (see more)

(Case T-501/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark ‘see more’ - Earlier national word marks CMORE - 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))

2011/C 319/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: P. Munzinger, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: W. Verburg, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: C More Entertainment AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 1388/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between C More Entertainment AB and NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/15

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2012 — Dow Chemical v Commission

(Case T-77/08) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for chloroprene rubber - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price-fixing - Market-sharing - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Joint venture - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation)

2012/C 80/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Dow Chemical Company (Midland, Michigan, United States) (represented by: D. Schroeder and T. Graf, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by X. Lewis and V. Bottka, subsequently by V. Bottka and V. Di Bucci, and lastly by V. Bottka, P. Van Nuffel and L. Malferrari, Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for, principally, annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.629 — Chloroprene Rubber), as amended by Commission Decision C(2008) 2974 final of 23 June 2008, in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders The Dow Chemical Company to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Commission v Dittert

(Case T-51/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2005 promotion procedure - Priority points - Points not allocated due to a technical problem - A* Promotion Committee - Allocation of a lower number of points than had been proposed by the applicant’s superior - Failure to include the applicant in the list of officials eligible for promotion)

(2012/C 25/89)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Daniel Dittert (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 in Case F 109/06 Dittert v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, with a view to having that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay Mr Daniel Dittert’s costs.

(1) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/11

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2012 — DEI v Commission

(Case T-169/08) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Greek market for the supply of lignite and Greek wholesale electricity market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 86(1) EC, read in combination with Article 82 EC - Grant or maintenance of rights awarded by the Hellenic Republic in favour of a public undertaking for the extraction of lignite)

2012/C 343/13

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Anestis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, A. Bouquet and A. Antoniadis, Agents, assisted by A. Oikonomou, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits and P. Mylonopoulos, Agents, assisted initially by A. Komninos and M. Marinos, and subsequently by M. Marinos, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Energeiaki Thessalonikis AE (Echedoros, Greece); and Elliniki Energeia kai Anaptyxi AE (HE & DSA), (Kifissia, Greece) (represented by: P. Skouris and E. Trova, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 824 final of 5 March 2008, concerning the grant or maintenance by the Hellenic Republic of rights in favour of DEI for the extraction of lignite

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 824 final of 5 March 2008, concerning the grant or maintenance by the Hellenic Republic of rights in favour of Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) for the extraction of lignite.

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by DEI.

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic, Elliniki Energeia kai Anaptyxi AE (HE & DSA) and Energeiaki Thessalonikis AE to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.
2.

Orders Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung to pay two thirds of its own costs and two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission. The Commission is ordered to pay one third of its own costs and one third of the costs incurred by Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/29

Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība v Commission

(Case T-414/08) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)

2013/C 156/50

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers); and European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/15

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2013 — Dole Food and Dole Germany v Commission

(Case T-588/08) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in bananas - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Concept of a concerted practice having an anti-competitive object - Information exchange system - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Rights of the defence - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Gravity of the infringement)

2013/C 123/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Dole Food Company, Inc. (Westlake Village, California, United States); and Dole Germany OHG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by X. Lewis and M. Kellerbauer, and subsequently by M. Kellerbauer and P. Van Nuffel, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5955 final of 15 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/39.188 — Bananas)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Dole Food Company, Inc. and Dole Germany OHG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.