ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27-28, 46

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 July 2007 (Case R 269/2005-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Editorial Planeta, SA, and Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH.

Information relating to the case

>lt>21

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 47, 64, 68, 73, 77-78, 81-84

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 June 2007 (Case R 1130/2006-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign SURFCARD as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>15

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 June 2007 (Case R 1130/2006-1) to the extent that it refuses the registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign SURFCARD for ‘magnetic data media, optical data media’ falling within Class 9 and ‘credit card services, debit card services’ falling within Class 36 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre-Est Europe (CFCMCEE) and OHIM to bear their own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 31, 41, 53

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 June 2007 (Case R 358/2007-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign PharmaCheck as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Korsch AG to pay the costs.
The Parliament has a broad discretion with regard to the factors to be taken into account for the purpose of deciding to award a contract following an invitation to tender. The Court’s review of the exercise of that discretion is therefore limited to checking that the rules governing the procedure and statement of reasons are complied with, the facts are correct and there is no manifest error of assessment or misuse of powers.

It follows from Article 100(2) of Regulation No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities and Article 149(3) of Regulation No 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation that the Community institution will meet its obligation to state reasons for its decision, in an award procedure for a public services contract, to reject a tender, if it satisfies itself, first, that it has immediately notified all rejected tenderers of the reasons for the rejection of their tender and then provides tenderers who submitted an admissible tender and who expressly request it with the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender and the name of the tenderer to which the contract was awarded within 15 calendar days of receipt of a written request.

Where a Community institution has broad powers of appraisal, respect for the rights guaranteed by the Community legal order in administrative procedures is of even more fundamental importance. Those guarantees include, in particular, the duty of the competent institution to provide adequate reasons for its decisions. Only in this way can the Court verify whether the factual and legal elements upon which the exercise of the power of appraisal depends were present.

If the institution concerned sends a letter in response to a request from the applicant seeking additional explanations about a decision before instituting proceedings but after the date laid down in Article 149(3) of Regulation No 2342/2002, that letter may also be taken into account when examining whether the statement of reasons in the case in question is adequate. The requirement to state reasons must be assessed in the light of the information which the applicant possesses at the time of instituting proceedings, it being understood, however, that the institution is not permitted to replace the original statement of reasons by an entirely new statement.

However, the fact that the institution concerned provided the reasons for the decision to reject a tender in the course of the proceedings does not compensate for the inadequacy of the initial statement of reasons for that decision. The reasons for a decision cannot be explained for the first time ex post facto before the Court, save in exceptional circumstances.

(see paras 59, 61, 73, 76)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 15 September 2009 — Royal Appliance International v OHIM — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (Centrixx)

(Case T-446/07)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark Centrixx — Earlier national word mark sensixx — 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 25-33, 59-64)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 (Case R 572/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH and Royal Appliance International GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Royal Appliance International GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark ‘Centrixx’ for goods in Class 7 — Application No 3016227 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘sensixx’ for goods in Class 7 — Registration No 30244090 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and refusal of the application for registration of the mark

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 28 October 2009 — Juwel Aquarium v OHIM — Potschak (Panorama)

(Case T-339/07)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Panorama — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds of invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 29-37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 June 2007 (Case R 214/2006-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Christian Potschak and Juwel Aquarium GmbH & Co. KG.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark Panorama for goods in Classes 11, 16 and 20 — Community trade mark No 2771087 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Juwel Aquarium GmbH & Co. KG Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Christian Potschak Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for declaration of invalidity dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division and partial annulment of the Community trade mark

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 — Fratex Indústria e Comércio v OHIM — USA Track & Field (TRACK & FIELD USA)

(Case T-103/07)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community mark TRACK & FIELD USA — Earlier national figurative mark TRACK & FIELD — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Lack of similarity between 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 33, 68-74)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of 18 January 2007 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case No R 1061/2005-4)) concerning opposition proceedings between Fratex Indústria e Comércio, Ltda and USA Track & Field, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: USA Track & Field, Inc Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark USA TRACK & FIELD — Application No 1680883 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Fratex Indústria e Comércio, Ltda Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative national mark TRACK & FIELD Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal by USA Track & Field, Inc allowed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Jurisdiction of the Court defined exclusively by Article 238 EC and the arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 76-77)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law not set out in the application (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 120-123)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Violation of the principles of good administration and transparency – Raised in the context of purely contractual relations – Inadmissible save where contractual terms or the law applicable to the contract infringed (see para. 124)

4. Officials – Rights and obligations – Duty of independence and integrity – Risk of conflict of interests where there are professional relations between an official having to rule on a case and a third party involved in it – None (Staff Regulations, Art. 11 a) (see paras 130-134)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought under Articles 235 EC, 238 EC and 288 EC for an order that the Commission make good damage suffered as a result of its failure to comply with contractual obligations in the context of the performance of the EDC-53007 EEBO/27873 contract relating to the project entitled ‘e-Content Exposure and Business Opportunities’.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Social policy

–

European Social Fund

–

Financial assistance for vocational training

–

Decision to reduce assistance initially granted

–

Defence rights of beneficiaries

–

Scope (see paras 33-35, 37, 52

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Decision D(2004) 24253 of 9 November 2004 reducing the amount of assistance granted to the applicant by the European Social Fund by Decision No C(87) 0860 of 30 April 1987 for training schemes (file No 870927 P1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Cofac – Cooperativa de Formação e Animação Cultural, CRL to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Communities – Rules on languages – Regulation No 1 – Scope (Council Regulation No 1) (see paras 52-54)

2. European Communities – Rules on languages – No general principle giving each citizen the right to have any document capable of affecting his interests drafted in his own language (Council Regulation No 1) (see para. 73)

3. Officials – Competitions – Notice of competition – Publication in the Official Journal only in certain official languages (see paras 77-85)

4. Officials – Competitions – Notice of competition – Full publication in the Official Journal only in certain official languages (see paras 91, 93-94)

5. Officials – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions (see paras 110-112)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/94/07 for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of Administrators (AD 5) in the field of information, communication and the media (OJ 2007 C 45 A, p. 3) and Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AST/37/07 for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of Assistants (AST 3) in the field of communication and information (OJ 2007 C 45 A, p. 15), and Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/95/07 for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of Administrators (AD 5) in the field of information science (library/documentation) (OJ 2007 C 103 A, p. 7).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

3. Orders the Republic of Lithuania and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

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

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;

3. Orders the Republic of Portugal to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 26 June 2008 – SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos v OHIM – Polaris Software Lab (POLARIS)

(Case T-79/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark POLARIS – Earlier Community word mark POLAR – Relative ground for refusal – No 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 48, 50-51)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2007 (Case R 658/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos SL and Polaris Software Lab Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Polaris Software Lab Ltd Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark POLARIS for goods and services in Classes 9 and 42 – Application No 3267713 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark POLAR for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in respect of all the goods at issue in Class 9 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 17 September 2008 – FVB v OHIM – FVD (FVB)

(Case T-10/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark FVB – Earlier national word mark FVD – Relative grounds 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 51-57)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2006 (Case R 1343/2005-4), relating to opposition proceedings between FVD Gesellschaft für Finanzplanung und Vorsorgemanagement Deutschland mbH and FVB Gesellschaft für Finanz- und Versorgungsberatung mbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: FVB Gesellschaft für Finanz- und Versorgungsberatung mbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark FVB for services in Classes 35 and 36 – Application No 2126175 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: FVD Gesellschaft für Finanzplanung und Vermögensberatung Deutschland mbH (formerly FVD Gesellschaft für Finanzplanung und Vorsorgemanagement Deutschland mbH) Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark FVD for services in Class 36. Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld; partial rejection of the application for registration Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2008 – Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM – CMS Hasche Sigle (VISIBLE WHITE)

(Case T-136/07)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark VISIBLE WHITE – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 45-47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2007 (Case R 165/2005-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between CMS Hasche Sigle and Colgate-Palmolive Co.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: Word mark VISIBLE WHITE for goods in Class 3 – Community mark No 802793 Proprietor of the trade mark concerned: Colgate-Palmolive Co. Party applying for cancellation: CMS Hasche Sigle Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for cancellation dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Cancellation Division set aside; declaration annulling the Community trade mark





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2008 – Vitro Corporativo v OHIM – VKR Holding (Vitro)

(Case T-295/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark Vitro – Earlier Community word mark VITRAL – 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 24, 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 May 2007 (Case R 1640/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between VKR Holding A/S and Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Vitro for goods and services in Classes 1, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 30, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 – Application No 2669497 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: VKR Holding A/S Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark No 651745, Danish word mark No 1951415 VR, German word mark No 725452 and British word mark No 1436897 VITRAL, for goods, inter alia, in Class 19, against which the opposition was brought Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld; application for registration dismissed for goods in Class 19 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2008 – GretagMacbeth v OHIM (Combination of 24 coloured squares)

(Case T-400/07)

Community trade mark – Application for Community colour mark – Combination of 24 coloured squares – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 39, 41-43, 50, 53-55)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 August 2007 (Case R 30/2007-4) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a colour sign composed of 24 coloured squares.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: GretagMacbeth LLC Community trade mark sought: Mark consisting of a combination of 24 coloured squares for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 42 – Application No 4634572 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;