ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Admissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c); Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see para. 29)

2. 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 52-59)

3. 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 66-79)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2009 (Case R 462/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Amen Corner, SA and Comercio Electrónico Ojal, SL.

Information relating to the case

>lt>9

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Amen Corner, SA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 – Scope identical to that of Article 253 EC (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 16)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see paras 17-19)

3. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 63, 65, 73)

Subject of the case

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2009 (Cases R 1330/2008-1 and R 1329/2008-1) concerning applications for registration of the combination of the colours broom yellow and silver grey and the combination of the colours yellow ochre and silver grey as Community trade marks.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders that Cases T-299/09 and T-300/09 be joined for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;

3. Orders Gühring OHG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Own resources of the European Union – Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties – Conditions for not taking account of import duties set out in Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 62(1) and 220(2)(b)) (see paras 42-44, 53-61, 72-73)

2. Own resources of the European Union – Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties – No publication, by the Commission, of a notice to importers in the event of doubts as to the origin of goods likely to be subject to anti-dumping duties (Council Regulation No 2913/92) (see paras 79-81)

3. Own resources of the European Union – Repayment or remission of import duties – Fairness clause instituted by Article 239 of the Community Customs Code and Article 905 of implementing Regulation No 2454/93 – Particular situation – Concept (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 905) (see paras 91-92, 95-99)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 747 final of 12 February 2009, stating that post-clearance entry in the accounts of certain import duties was justified and that the remission of such duties was not justified (File reference: REC 01/08).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders Hit Trading BV and Berkman Forwarding BV 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 devoid of distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 24-27

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2008 (Case R 1779/2007-1) concerning a request for registration of the word sign Run the globe as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Alexander Gruber to pay the costs.
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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24-25, 34)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 59)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Case R 594/2008-2) in relation to opposition proceedings between The Polo/Lauren Company, LP, and Glenton España, SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Glenton España, SA 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 devoid of distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 33-37, 40

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2009 (Case R 554/2009-2), concerning an application for the word sign WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>10

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Smart Technologies ULC 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 devoid of distinctive character

–

Figurative mark representing a purple rectangle with a rounded side (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 34-35, 44

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2009 (Case R 491/2009-4) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a purple rectangle with a rounded side.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Evonik Industries AG to pay the costs.
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 207/2009, Art 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 33-34, 57, 66-67

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 (Case R 1044/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

Information relating to the case

>lt>9

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 September 2009 (Case R 1044/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders ATB Norte, SL, Bricocenter Italia and OHIM each to bear their own costs incurred during the proceedings before the General Court.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Surrender, revocation and invalidity

–

Examination of the application

–

Proof of use of the earlier mark

–

Time-limit set by the Office

–

Submission of additional evidence after expiry of the time-limit where there are new factors

–

Lawfulness (Council Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 22(2), and 40(6)) (see paras 22, 24-27

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 April 2009 (Case R 982/2008‑2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Mangini & C. Srl and Cesea Group Srl.

Operative part

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 20 April 2009 (Case R 982/2008‑2);

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Application initiating proceedings

–

Formal requirements

–

Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute

–

Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 18-19

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2009 (Case R 1547/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Rory McLoughney and Mr Ernst Kern.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Rory McLoughney to pay the costs.
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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22-23, 51-52, 55

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2009 (Case R 695/2008‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Harald Heldmann and, on the other, La Sonrisa de Carmen, SL and Bloom Clothes, SL.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders La Sonrisa de Carmen, SL and Bloom Clothes, SL to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Harald Heldmann;

3. Orders Mr Heldmann to bear his own costs.
Keywords



Keywords

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 1258/1999) (see paras 29‑34, 78)

2. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas not set out in the application — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 47)

3. Acts of the institutions — Regulations — Regulation prescribing specific control measures — No discretion of the Member States — Non-implementation — Justification — Other control system as effective or better — Not permissible (see para. 80)

4. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in the application of Community rules — Finding of failures in the control system implemented by a Member State — Possibility for the Commission to disallow expenses as a whole — Application of a flat-rate correction — Breach of principle of proportionality — None (Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 7; Commission Regulation No 2148/96, Arts 4 and 6) (see paras 137, 140, 147)

5. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Grant of aids and subsidies — Obligation of Member States to organise an efficient system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks — Failure to fulfil obligations — Justification based on practical difficulties — Not permissible (see paras 150‑152)
Keywords



Keywords

Public contracts of the European Union — Tender procedure — Period of validity of tenders — Purpose — Possibility of the tendering authority asking tenderers for an extension of validity — No obligation on tenderers to accept the request — No obligation on tenderers to accept the request — No obligation to annul the procedure in the event of refusal (Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 130(2)(c)) (see paras 37-40)

2. Public contracts of the European Union — Tender procedure — Award of contracts — Exclusion of tenderers seriously in default of their obligations under another contract — Condition — Tenderers having been subject to an administrative penalty under Article 96(1) of the Financial Regulation (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 93(1)(f), 94 and 96(1); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 134b) (see paras 50-51)

3. Public contracts of the European Union — Tender procedure — Right for undertakings established in countries which are not signatories of the agreement on public contracts, or which use sub-contractors established in those countries, to participate in tendering procedures — Lawfulness (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 106 and 107) (see para. 55)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the award of a public contract, not to accept a tender — Assessment by reference to the circumstances of the particular case (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 76-80)

5. Public contracts of the European Union — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Decision requiring a complex technical assessment — Judicial review — Limits (see paras 88, 111)

6. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Mere allegation not supported by factual or legal explanations — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 114-115)
3.

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF — Obligation complied with simply by the fact of the close association of the addressee Member State with the decision-making process (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 26)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2013 — HSE v Commission

(Case T‑399/09)

‛Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Presumption of innocence — Fines — Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — 2006 guidelines on the method of setting fines — Mitigating circumstances — Infringement committed as a result of negligence — Infringement authorised or encouraged by the public authorities’

1. Competition — Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Presumption that a parent company exerts a decisive influence over its wholly-owned subsidiaries — Obligation of the parent company to rebut the presumption that management power was actually exercised over its subsidiary (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 11-16)

2. Competition — Union rules — Infringement committed by an undertaking — Attribution to another undertaking having regard to the economic and legal links between them — Burden of proof on the Commission (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 29)

3. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Undertaking — Concept — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 30-32, 34-36, 38, 51, 53, 54, 59, 80, 84-86, 100)

4. EU law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Presumption of innocence — Procedures in competition matters — Applicability — Degree of probative value required for the evidence on which the Commission relies (Art. 81(1) EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48(1)) (see paras 107-109)

5. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Deterrent effect of the fine — Discretion of the Commission — Same percentage applied in respect of all cartel participants — No breach of the principle of equal treatment (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02, points 21 and 25) (see paras 124, 125, 131, 132)

6. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Infringement committed by several undertakings — Gravity to be assessed individually (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02) (see para. 135)

7. Competition — Union rules — Infringements — Committed deliberately — Concept (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 140-142)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 ‐ Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries), in so far as it relates to the applicant, and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T‑126/09)

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

1. Officials — Competitions — Notice of open competition — Publication in full in the Official Journal only in some official languages and brief notice in all languages — Not permissible — Discrimination based on language — Breach of principle of proportionality (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 21; Staff Regulations, Art. 1 quinquies, (1) and (6); Annex III, Art. 1(2); Council Regulation No 1, Art. 5) (see paras 22-28)

2. Officials — Competitions — Running of an open competition — Languages of participation in tests — Equal treatment — Requirement of specific linguistic knowledge — Statement of reasons — Justification having regard to the interests of the service — Observance of the principle of proportionality (Staff Regulations, Arts 1 quinquies, (1) and (6), 27, first para., and 28(f); Annex III, Art. 1(1)(f);Council Regulation No 1, Art. 1) (see paras 33-39)

3. Actions brought by officials — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Annulment of a notice of open competition — Legitimate expectations of the candidates selected — Results of the competition not called into question (Art. 266 TFEU; Staff Regulations, Art. 91) (see paras 48, 49)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/144/09 in the field of public health, EPSO/AD/145/09 in the field of food safety (policy and legislation) and EPSO/AD/146/09 in the field of food safety (audit, inspection and assessment), to constitute a reserve list of administrators (AD 5) with Bulgarian, Cypriot, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Romanian, Slovak and Slovenian citizenship, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union of 14 January 2009 (OJ 2009, C 9 A, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/144/09 in the field of public health, EPSO/AD/145/09 in the field of food safety (policy and legislation) and EPSO/AD/146/09 in the field of food safety (audit, inspection and assessment), to constitute a reserve list of administrators (AD 5) with Bulgarian, Cypriot, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Romanian, Slovak and Slovenian citizenship, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union of 14 January 2009;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2010 – hofherr communikation v OHIM (NATURE WATCH)

(Case T-77/09)

Community trade mark – International registration designating the European Community – Word mark NATURE WATCH – 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 23, 39)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2008 (Case R 1410/2008-1) concerning the international registration, designating the European Community, of the word sign NATURE WATCH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: hofherr communikation GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark NATURE WATCH for goods and services in Classes 9, 39, 41 and 43 – international registration No WOO957541 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;