ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 11 February 2009 – Bayern Innovativ v OHIM – Life Sciences Partners Perstock (LifeScience)

(Case T-413/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings − Application for the figurative Community trade mark LifeScience − Earlier Community trade mark Life Sciences Partners − Relative ground for refusal − Likelihood of confusion − Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 58)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 August 2007 (Case R 1545/2006‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Life Sciences Partners Perstock NV and Bayern Innovativ – Bayerische Gesellschaft für Innovation und Wissenstransfer mbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bayern Innovativ – Bayerische Gesellschaft für Innovation und Wissenstransfer mbH Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark compromising a representation in colour of a DNA spiral, an oval, a grill and, in the lower part, the word elements LifeScience, designating goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 36, 41 and 42 – Application No 3585957 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in support of the opposition proceedings: Life Sciences Partners Perstock NV Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark comprising a representation of a naked woman surrounded by a DNA spiral and containing the word elements Life Sciences Partners, for services in Classes 35 and 36 – Application No 2136026 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 29 April 2009 – Bodegas Montebello v OHIM – Montebello (MONTEBELLO RHUM AGRICOLE)

(Case T-430/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the figurative Community trade mark MONTEBELLO RHUM AGRICOLE – Earlier national word mark MONTEBELLO – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Absence of similarity between the goods – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

1. 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 34, 36, 39)

2. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Partial use (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 42-43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2007 (Case R 223/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Montebello, SA and Montebello SARL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Montebello SARL Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark MONTEBELLO RHUM AGRICOLE for goods in Class 33 – Application No 2666386 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bodegas Montebello, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark MONTEBELLO for goods in Class 33 – Application No 1148196 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed, Decision of the Opposition Division annulled.





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
7

By decision of 24 October 2007 (‘the contested decision’), the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM granted the appeal in part. In essence, the Board of Appeal found that the goods in respect of which the territorial extension of protection to the European Community had been sought were everyday consumer goods, that the relevant public consisted of average English-speaking consumers established in the Community, who are reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, that the verb ‘to tame’ meant ‘to “soften”’, ‘to “harness or control”’ or ‘to “make tractable”’ and that the combination of words ‘tame it’ followed the rules of ordinary English grammar and syntax. The Board of Appeal concluded that, in relation to hair lotions, cosmetics and essential oils — the latter two categories of goods also being capable of being used to tame hair — the relevant public would immediately, clearly and without any further thought understand the expression ‘tame it’ as a purely promotional message informing that public about the desired effect of using those goods. The Board of Appeal found that, as regards those goods, the mark TAME IT was devoid of any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. However, the Board of Appeal found that no relevant connection could be established between the mark TAME IT and the ‘soaps, perfumeries and dentifrices’ and that therefore it could not conclude that, as regards those goods, that mark lacked distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. In view of those considerations, the Board of Appeal, first, dismissed the appeal and upheld the examiner’s decision in so far as it had refused the European Community designation of the international registration of the mark TAME IT for ‘essential oils, cosmetics [and] hair lotions’ and, secondly, annulled the examiner’s decision and, consequently, allowed the European Community designation of the international registration of the mark TAME IT to proceed to publication for ‘soaps, perfumeries [and] dentifrices’.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 – Ristic and Others v Commission

(Case T-238/07)

Animal health – Protective measures – Decision 2007/362/EC – Action for annulment – No need to adjudicate – Action for damages – Principle of proportionality – Principle of protection of legitimate expectations – Duty of care – Right to property and right to carry on economic activity

1. Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 37-39)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 51-52)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 55-56)

4. Agriculture – Approximation of laws on animal health – Control measures to be implemented in relation to certain substances and their residues in live animals and their products – Directive 96/23 (Council Directive 96/23; Commission Decision 2007/362) (see paras 58-60, 66-68, 74, 76-82)

5. Agriculture – Approximation of laws on animal health – Control measures to be implemented in relation to certain substances and their residues in live animals and their products – Directive 96/23 (Council Directive 96/23; Commission Decision 2007/362) (see paras 85-91)

6. Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 92-93)

Re:

First, application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/362/EC of 16 May 2007 amending Decision 2004/432/EC on the approval of residue monitoring plans submitted by third countries in accordance with Council Directive 96/23/EC (OJ 2007 L 138, p. 18), and, second, application for damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application for annulment;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Ristic AG, Piratic Meeresfrüchte Import GmbH, Prime Catch Seafood GmbH and Rainbow Export Processing, SA to pay the costs, including those of the interlocutory proceedings.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 – Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (222, 333 and 555)

(Joined Cases T-200/07 to T-202/07)

Community trade mark – Applications for Community word marks 222, 333 and 555 – 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 26-32)

Re:

Three actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2007 (Cases R 1276/2006-4, R 1277/2006-4 and R 1278/2006-4), concerning the applications for registration of the word marks 222, 333 and 555 as Community trade marks.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. Community trade mark sought: Word marks 222, 333 and 555 for products in Class 16 Decision of the Examiner: Registrations refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeals dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 October 2010 – Spain v Commission

(Case T-227/07)

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Production aid intended for tomato processors – Spot checks over sufficient periods – Proportionality

1. 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 Regulation No 729/70) (see paras 36-39)

2. Agriculture – EAGGF – Grant of aid and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an effective system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks – Spot checks over sufficient periods – Concept – Requirement that the subject not be aware in advance of a spot check or its unlikelihood during a predetermined period (Commission Regulation No 1535/2003, Arts 28 and 31) (see paras 64-65)

3. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Regulation prescribing specific control measures – No discretion of Member States – Non-implementation – Justification – Better effectiveness of another control system – Not permissible (Commission Regulation No 1535/2003) (see paras 70, 101)

Re:

ACTION for annulment, in part, of Commission Decision 2007/243/EC of 18 April 2007 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 2007 L 106, p. 55).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2011 – Olive Line International v OHIM – Knopf (O-live)

(Case T-485/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark O-live – Earlier national trade name Olive line – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Right to prohibit use of a subsequent mark – Likelihood of confusion – Article 7 of the Spanish Trade Mark Law and Article 8(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade – Conditions – Interpretation in the light of Community law – Assessment having regard to criteria laid down by national law governing the sign invoked (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 49-51)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 67, 103-107)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2007 (Case R 1478/2006-2) in opposition proceedings between Olive Line International, SL, and Mr Reinhard Knopf.

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 26 September 2007 (Case R 1478/2006-2);

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2011 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-377/07)

Public service contracts – Tendering procedure – Supply of IT services relating to content interoperability technologies for European eGovernment services – Rejection of a tender – Manifest error of assessment – Duty to state reasons – Misuse of powers – Non-contractual liability

1. European Union public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see paras 22, 90)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision, in a procedure for awarding a public service contract, not to accept a tender (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149) (see paras 94-96, 105)

3. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Misuse of powers – Concept (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 109)

4. 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 121-122)

Re:

APPLICATION for (i) annulment of the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2007 not to accept the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki in the context of the call for tenders relating to ‘Content interoperability for European eGovernment Services’ (OJ 2006 S 128) and also of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and (ii) damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Guedes — Indústria e Comércio v OHIM — Espai Rural de Gallecs (Gallecs)

(Case T-151/08)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Gallecs — Earlier national and Community figurative marks GALLO, GALLO AZEITE NOVO, GALLO AZEITE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Lack of similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (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 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 34, 35, 50-56)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2008 (Case R 986/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio SA and Consorci de l’Espai Rural de Gallecs.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Consorci de l’Espai Rural de Gallecs Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark GALLECS for goods in Classes 29 and 31 — Application No 3710597 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative mark GALLO for goods in Class 29; the national figurative mark GALLO AZEITE NOVO for goods in Class 29; the national figurative mark AZEITE GALLO for goods in Class 29; the national mark GALLO AZEITE NOVO for goods in Class 29; the Community figurative mark GALLO for goods in Class 29 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause

–

Contract granting Community financial assistance for carrying out a project in the area of research, technological development and demonstration

–

Overall financial contribution to the project less than the amount of the sum advanced by the Commission

–

Right to partial repayment of the advance, plus late-payment interest

–

Interest rate for delay claimed by the Commission lower than that calculated under the rules of the applicable national law (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 51-59

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION under Article 238 EC seeking an order that the defendant reimburse part of the amount advanced by the European Community, together with late-payment interest, under contract SU 1001 (SU) Encata.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Regional, SA to reimburse to the Commission of the European Communities the sum of EUR 63 349.27, together with late-payment interest:

– at the rate of 6.29% per annum from 31 January 2001 to the date of the present judgment;

– at the annual rate applied under Irish law, that is to say, currently Article 26 of the Debtors (Ireland) Act 1840, as amended, up to the rate of 6.29% per annum from the date of the present judgment to full clearance of the debt.

2. Orders Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Regional to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2009 — Mars v OHIM — Ludwig Schokolade (Shape of a chocolate bar)

(Case T-28/08)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community three-dimensional mark — Shape of a chocolate bar — 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) — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Right to be heard — Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds of invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 — Marks devoid of distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 30-34)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks which are devoid of distinctive character, descriptive or commonplace — Exception — Acquisition of distinctive character through usage (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7 (3)) (see paras 47, 54, 66, 68)

3. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see para. 89)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2007 (Case R 1325/2006-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ludwig Schokolade GmbH & Co. KG and Mars, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A three-dimensional mark representing a chocolate bar for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30 — Community trade mark No 818864 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Mars, Inc. Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Ludwig Schokolade GmbH & Co. KG Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Cancellation Division’s decision and declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Surrender, revocation and invalidity

–

Application for revocation

–

Admissibility

–

Conditions

–

Interest in bringing proceedings (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 55(1)(a)) (see paras 18-23

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 April 2008 in Case R 709/2007-1 concerning revocation proceedings between AD Bulgartabac Holding Sofia and Iranian Tobacco Co.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Iranian Tobacco Co. to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 28 October 2009 — X-Technology R & D Swiss v OHIM — Ipko-Amcor (First-On-Skin)

(Case T-273/08)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for the word trade mark First-On-Skin — Earlier national word trade mark FIRST — 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 26, 42, 43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 May 2008 (Case R 281/2007-4) concerning an opposition procedure between X-Technology R & D Swiss GmbH and Ipko-Amcor BV.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: X-Technology R & D Swiss GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark First-On-Skin for goods in Classes 18, 23 and 25 — Application No 4019981 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ipko-Amcor BV Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark FIRST for goods in Class 25 (Benelux Registration No 401666), the objection having been lodged against registration for goods in Class 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action against a Commission decision concerning State aid

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

An action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person is admissible only in so far as the applicant has an interest in the annulment of the contested measure. Such an interest presupposes that the annulment of the measure must of itself be capable of having legal consequences and that the action must be likely, if successful, to procure an advantage for the party who brought it. That interest must be vested and present and is evaluated as at the date on which the action is brought. It must, however, continue until the final decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate.

An action brought by an undertaking seeking the annulment of a Commission decision laying down a transitional period for terminating a State aid scheme declared incompatible with the common market is inadmissible where the undertaking no longer has a valid authorisation under national law and thus no longer validly benefits from the tax scheme referred to in that decision. The annulment of that decision could not procure any advantage for the undertaking.

(see paras 48-49, 53, 58)