ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 19 November 2008 – Commission v B2 Test

(Case T-317/07)

Arbitration clause – Contract concluded in the framework of the specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of industrial and materials technologies (1994-1998) – Breach of contract – Repayment of balance of advance paid by the Commission

1. Budget of the European Communities – Community financial assistance – Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for the grant of assistance (see para. 71)

2. Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC; Council Decision 94/571) (see paras 74, 82, 90-91, 99-101)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 238 EC seeking to obtain repayment of the balance of the advance paid by the European Community, plus late-payment interest thereon, in the framework of the contract BRST-CT-98-5452, and the payment of damages with interest.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders B2 Test SA to repay to the Commission the principal sum of EUR 43 437.94, increased by late-payment interest at the statutory annual rate applicable in France, from 31 July 2002 until the debt has been paid in full;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 – Greece v Commission

(Case T-33/07)

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Olive oil, cotton, dried grapes and citrus fruits – Non-compliance with payment deadlines – Period of 24 months – Assessment of the expenditure to be excluded – Key controls – Principle of proportionality – Principle of ne bis in idem – Extrapolation of the findings of default

1. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Commission Regulation No 1663/95, as amended by Regulation No 2245/1999, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 80-82, 116-117, 140, 197, 265, 279, 285, 292-294, 321, 372)

2. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Regulation prescribing specific control measures (see paras 166, 190)

3. Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions (see para. 227)

4. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Accounts clearance procedure (Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 7(4), fifth para., (a); Commission Regulation No 1663/95, as amended by Regulation No 2245/1999, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 230-232, 236, 240, 381)

5. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Commission decision withdrawing Community financial assistance (Art. 231 EC) (see para. 380)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 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 355, p. 96), in so far as it relates to certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the sectors of olive oil, dried grapes, citrus fruit and financial control.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 – Dominio de la Vega v OHIM – Ambrosio Velasco (DOMINIO DE LA VEGA)

(Case T-458/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark DOMINIO DE LA VEGA – Earlier Community figurative mark PALACIO DE LA VEGA – 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 26-29, 45-55)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 (Case R 1431/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Ambrosio Velasco, SA and Dominio de la Vega, SL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Dominio de la Vega, SL Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark DOMINIO DE LA VEGA for goods in Classes 33, 42 and 43 – Application No 2789576 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ambrosio Velasco, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade mark PALACIO DE LA VEGA for goods in Class 33 – Application No 78147 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all those goods, in Class 33, against which it was directed, and rejection of the application for those goods Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 – Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM – Redfil (Agile)

(Case T-386/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark Agile – Earlier Community and national word marks Aygill’s – 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 16, 42-44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 July 2007 (Case R 1324/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg and Redfil, SL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Redfil, SL Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Agile for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28 – Application No 2659456 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Peek & Cloppenburg Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national word mark Aygill’s for goods in Classes 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21 and 24 to 28 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division’s decision and dismissal of the opposition in its entirety





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 July 2007 (Case R 1324/2006 2);

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Peek & Cloppenburg;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 – France Télécom v OHIM (UNIQUE)

(Case T-396/07)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark UNIQUE – 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)

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 20-23)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2007 (Case R 585/2007-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign UNIQUE as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: France Télécom Community trade mark sought: Word mark UNIQUE for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 38 – Application No 5312392 Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of registration Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2010 – Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten v OHIM – Applus Servicios Tecnológicos (A+)

(Case T-321/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark A+ – Earlier Community word mark AirPlus International – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Lack of similarity between the signs – Duty to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 73, 74 and 79 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 75, 76 and 83 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 30, 43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 June 2007 (Case R 310/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH and Applus Servicios Tecnológicos, SL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Applus Servicios Tecnológicos, SL Community trade mark sought: Figurative trade mark ‘A+’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41 and 42 – application No 2933356 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark Airplus International for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

3. Orders Applus Servicios Tecnológicoas, SL to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2009 – Apache Footwear and Apache II Footwear v Council

(Case T-1/07)

Dumping – Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam – Market economy status – Community interest

1. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Determination of the normal value – Imports from countries not having a market economy as referred to inArticle 2(7)(b) of Regulation No 384/96 – Application of rules relating to countries with a market economy – Application reserved for producers satisfying the cumulative conditions set out in Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation No 384/96 – Group of companies (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 2(7)) (see paras 84-85)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Regulations imposing anti-dumping duties (Art. 253 EC) (see para. 96)

3. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see paras 111-112)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicants.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Apache Footwear Ltd and Apache II Footwear Ltd (Qingxin) to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 – Procter & Gamble v OHIM – Prestige Cosmetics (P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE)

(Case T-366/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE – Earlier national figurative marks Prestige – Partial refusal to register – Relative ground for refusal – No 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 51, 85)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2007 (Case R 681/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Prestige Cosmetics Srl and The Procter & Gamble Company.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The Procter & Gamble Company Community trade mark sought: Word mark P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE for, inter alia, goods in Class 3 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Prestige Cosmetics Srl Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative marks Prestige for goods in Class 3 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 July 2007 (Case R 681/2006-2);

2. Orders OHIM to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by The Procter & Gamble Company in the proceedings before the Court;

3. Orders Prestige Cosmetics SpA to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by The Procter & Gamble Company in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 March 2011 – Caixa Geral de Depósitos v Commission

(Case T-401/07)

ERDF – Reduction of financial assistance – Global grant for local development in Portugal – Action for annulment – Whether directly concerned – Inadmissibility – Arbitration clause

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Commission decision, addressed to a Member State, reducing financial aid from the European Regional Development Fund – Decision not requiring recovery of the sums paid from the final beneficiaries – No discretion of the Member State as to recovery of the said amounts arising under national law – Action brought by the organisation entrusted with management of the said aid – Not directly concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 61-90)

2. Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Jurisdiction of the General Court defined by the arbitration clause – Jurisdiction in derogation from ordinary law – Restrictive interpretation – Application for payment of the balance of Community financial assistance – Application outside the scope of the arbitration clause – Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 99-102)

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the financial assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the global grant for local development in Portugal by Commission Decision C(95) 1769 of the European Commission of 28 July 1995, and a claim for an order against the Commission to pay the final balance of the financial assistance under Article 238 EC.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;
48

Next, it is clear that CMT was in fact involved in the administrative proceedings in this case. First, as is clear from paragraphs 4 to 6 above, the Commission sent to CMT three requests for information, to which CMT replied. Second, the Commission sent to CMT, on 24 May 2006, a non-confidential version of the statement of objections. The Commission also informed CMT that it was open to it, if it chose, to send to the Commission written comments on the statement of objections or again to present observations or questions orally at the hearing. No written observations were presented by CMT. Third, the Kingdom of Spain does not dispute that several representatives of CMT were present at the hearing of 12 and 13 June 2006 and that CMT also intervened orally at that hearing. Fourth, on 26 June 2006 CMT also replied in writing to a number of questions put by the complainant during the hearing. Fifth, the Kingdom of Spain does not dispute the Commission’s assertion that the members of the team responsible for the file met CMT on several occasions in order to discuss the investigation. Sixth, the Kingdom of Spain does not dispute the Commission’s assertions that on 14 June 2007 several representatives of CMT met the Commission and presented observations on the wording of some recitals of the contested decision, which were taken into consideration for the second meeting of the advisory committee referred to in Article 14 of Regulation No 1/2003. CMT did not submit any additional comments in that regard. Moreover, a CMT expert took part in a meeting of that advisory committee, which took place on 15 June 2007. It must be held that the Kingdom of Spain fails to explain, in its action, why the participation of CMT, as described above, was insufficient in the present case.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Hedgefund Intelligence v OHIM — Hedge Invest (InvestHedge)

(Case T-67/08)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark InvestHedge — Earlier Community figurative mark Hedge Invest — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)’

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 53-56)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2007 (Case R 148/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Hedge Invest SpA and Hedgefund Intelligence Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Hedgefund Intelligence Ltd Community trade mark sought: The figurative mark InvestHedge for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 36 and 41 — Application No 3081081 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Hedge Invest SpA Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Community figurative mark HEDGE INVEST for services in Class 36 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the contested services in Classes 36 and 41 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Justified absences

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

2. Officials – Actions – Actions for damages – Annulment of the illegal act in dispute – Whether appropriate reparation for non-material damage

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

1. While an official’s justified absences cannot penalise him in the context of his assessment, his mark for efficiency may be increased to take account of the conditions in which he performed his duties despite having had less actual working time as a result of his absence. However, that factor is not automatically taken into account in the efficiency part of the overall mark, since it is merely an option for those drawing up the career development report, who must consider that possibility where circumstances warrant it.

In circumstances where the reporting officer and the countersigning officer have no reason to think that an official’s justified absences may have had a significant effect on his efficiency during the period covered by a career development report, they cannot be criticised for not having mentioned that fact or taken it into account in the comments on efficiency in the career development report.

(see paras 29, 39-40)

See: T‑277/03 Vlachaki v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑57 and II‑243, para. 83 and the case-law cited therein

2. The annulment of an act of the administration which has been challenged by an official in itself constitutes appropriate and, in principle, sufficient reparation for any non-material harm where that act does not contain an explicitly negative assessment of the applicant’s abilities capable of injuring him.

(see para. 47)

See: T‑155/03, T‑157/03 and T‑331/03 Cwik v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑411 and II‑1865, para. 205 and the case-law cited therein
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 — Gres La Sagra v OHIM — Ceramicalcora (VENATTO MARBLE STONE)

(Case T-130/08)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark VENATTO MARBLE STONE — Earlier national figurative marks VENETO CERÁMICAS — 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 17, 51-53)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2008 (Case R 1609/2006-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ceramicalcora, SA and Gres La Sagra, SL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Gres La Sagra, SL Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark VENATTO MARBLE STONE for goods and services in Classes 19, 21, 39 and 40 — Application No 3109006 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ceramicalcora, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade marks including the sign VENETO CÉRAMICAS Nos 2115543, 2056688, 2056689 and 2056699 for goods and services in Classes 27, 19, 21 and 39 respectively Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part. The Opposition Division held that there was a likelihood of confusion in the relevant territory for the goods and services at issue in Classes 19, 21 and 40, but that there was no such likelihood of confusion in relation to those services at issue in Class 39 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

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 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

)

Subject of the case

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

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders G-Star Raw Denim kft to pay the costs.