ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2006 – Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM – Cornu (FERRO)

(Case T‑310/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark FERRO – Earlier national word mark FERRERO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Similarity of goods

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 61-112)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2004 (Case R 540/2002-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero OHG mbH and Cornu SA Fontain.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Cornu SA Fontain Community trade mark sought: Word mark FERRO for goods in Class 30 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ferrero OHG mbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark FERRERO for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30, 32 and 33 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;

Orders the applicant to pay its own costs, the whole of the costs relating to the procedural issue concerning its substitution for Ferrero OHG mbH, and half of the costs incurred by the intervener;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 12 June 2007 – Budĕjovický Budvar v OHIM – Anheuser-Busch (BUD)

(Joined Cases T-60/04 to T-64/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Applications for a Community word mark BUD – Indication of origin registered under the Lisbon Agreement – Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Rejection of the opposition

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 commerce (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 68-72)

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 commerce (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(4)) (see para. 197)

Re:

ACTION brought against five decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2003 (Cases R 107/2003-2, R 111/2003-2, R 114/2003-2, R 115/2003-2 and R 122/2003-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik and Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Anheuser-Busch, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark BUD for goods in Classes 9, 14, 16, 21, 25, 29 and 30 – Applications Nos 739102, 24729, 24737, 24695 and 24679 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Budĕjovický Budvar, národní podnik Mark or sign cited in opposition: Indications of origin BUD Decision of the Opposition Division: Oppositions dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the applications in Joined Cases T‑60/04 to T‑64/04;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 23 October 2007 – Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHIM (Caipi)

(Case T-405/04)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark Caipi – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 38-39)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 August 2004 (Case R 912/2002-2) concerning the application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign Caipi.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG Community trade mark sought: Word mark Caipi for products in Class 33 – Application No 2655667 Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of registration Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

16 April 2008

Case T-486/04

Christos Michail

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Actions for annulment – Duty to provide assistance – Mental harassment)

Application: seeking annulment of the implied decision of 20 March 2004 by the Commission rejecting an application for assistance made by the applicant under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities.

Held: The action is dismissed. Mr Christos Michail is to bear one half of his costs. The Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs of Mr Michail.

Summary

Officials – Mental harassment – Definition





An official who claims to have been the victim of mental harassment must, irrespective of the subjective perception which he may have had of the facts alleged by him, put forward a body of evidence proving that he has been subjected to conduct aimed, on an objective view, at discrediting him or at deliberately impairing his working conditions, in other words, conduct which, viewed objectively, is of an intentional nature.

(see paras 62, 63)

See: T‑7/98, T‑208/98 and T‑109/99 De Nicola v EIB [2001] ECR‑SC I‑A‑49 and II‑185, para. 286; T‑144/03 Schmit v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑101 and II‑465, paras 64 and 65
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2008 – Terezakis v Commission

(Case T-380/04)

Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to the construction of the new Athens International Airport at Spata – Refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests – Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of audits – Partial access

European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 (Art. 253 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 2(3) and 4(1) to (6)) (see paras 38-46, 53-67, 69-73, 85-105, 153-155, 163)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 12 July 2004 refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to the construction of the new Athens International Airport at Spata.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 12 July 2004 in so far as it concerns the refusal of access to the contract of 14 June 1996 signed between Athens International Airport SA and a consortium of companies led by Hochtief AG;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders Mr Ioannis Terezakis to bear one half of his own costs;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2008 – Nortrail Transport v Commission

(Case T-496/04)

Customs Union – External Community transit operation – Fishery products originating in Norway – Application for remission and repayment of import duties – Fairness clause – Regulations (EEC) No 2913/92 and No 2454/93 – Special situation – Retroactive opening of tariff quotas

Own resources of the European Communities – Repayment or remission of import or export duties – Fairness clause introduced by Article 239 of the Community Customs Code and Article 905 of implementing Regulation No 2454/93 – Special situation (Decision No 1/94 of EC-Norway Joint Committee, Art. 17(7); Council Regulations No 2913/92, Art. 239, No 992/95 and No 3061/95, Art. 2; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 905(1); Council Decision No 95/312, Art. 5 and Annex I) (see paras 40-44, 48, 51, 53-54, 58-59, 61, 64-69)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision REM 15/02 of 1 October 2004, finding that the repayment of import duties to the applicant, which are the subject of the application made by the Federal Republic of Germany, is not justified.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability

–

Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 50-52, 59, 68, 70, 72

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s failure to set up a system allowing the applicant to import methyl bromide for critical uses into the European Union in January and February 2005.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission.
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Obligation to state reasons

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

2. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

1. Where, in the reports procedure established by the Commission, the Joint Evaluation Committee identifies special circumstances capable of calling into question the validity or merits of the initial assessment by the assessor or the countersigning officer, the appeal assessor must issue a reasoned opinion containing arguments giving adequate consideration to those special circumstances, and he is not released from that obligation merely by making an implied reference to the initial statement of reasons in the career development report. Such a possibility would have the effect of rendering the entire procedure before the Joint Evaluation Committee redundant.

(see paras 59, 61)

2. In view of the fact that assessors have a wide discretion when judging the work of persons whom they must assess, it is for the official applying for the annulment of his career development report to prove that there has been a manifest error of assessment.

Such an error exists where the performance of a head of unit has been assessed with reference to targets assigned on the basis of a staff increase that was not ultimately confirmed, where those targets were not revised downwards once it became clear that the recruitments announced would not take place.

(see paras 83, 90, 92)

See: T-43/04 Fardoom and Reinard v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑329 and II‑1465, para. 79
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 7(1) and 8; Commission Decision 2001/937, Annex, Arts 3 and 4) (see paras 56-57, 79, 108-110)

2. European Ombudsman – Alternative to an action before the Community judicature – Not possible to pursue both remedies in parallel (Art. 195(1) EC; Statute of the European Ombudsman, Art. 2(6) and (7)) (see para. 59)

3. Actions for annulment – Action against a decision merely confirming a previous decision (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 69-70, 81-82)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the alleged decision contained in the letter of the Commission of 14 February 2005 refusing the applicant access to certain documents from the file regarding the contract LIEN 97-2011.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV to pay its own costs and those of the Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 44-45)

2. State aid – Concept – Competence conferred on the Commission and the national court to classify a national measure as State aid – Limited discretion of the Commission (Art. 87(1) EC) (see para. 97)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision on State aid (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 98-100)

4. State aid – Administrative procedure – National measures implemented without having been notified – Faculty open to the Commission to issue a direction to the Member State concerned in order to obtain the information deemed by it to be necessary – Decision adopted by the Commission, without issuing a direction, on the basis of information regarded by it as fragmentary (Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 10) (see paras 105-108)

5. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Correction of an error of reasoning during the proceedings before the Court – Not permissible (Art. 253 EC) (see para. 121)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/900/EC of 20 October 2005 on the State Aid implemented by Finland for investment aid to Componenta Corporation (OJ 2006 L 353, p. 36).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2006/900/EC of 20 October 2005 on the State Aid implemented by Finland for investment aid to Componenta Corporation;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay Componenta’s costs;

3. Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat v Council

(Case T-348/05 INTP)

‛Procedure — Interpretation of a judgment’

Procedure — Interpretation of a judgment — Conditions for admissibility of the application (Arts 231, second para., EC and 233, first para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 129) (see paras 3-7)

Re:

APPLICATION for interpretation of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 in Case T-348/05.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that the first point of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 in Case T-348/05 JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat v Council is to be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of , amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, is annulled in so far as it concerns JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat;

2. Orders JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 8 February 2007 – Quelle v OHIM – Nars Cosmetics (NARS)

(Case T-88/05)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the figurative Community trade mark NARS – Earlier figurative national marks including the word element MARS – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Absence of similarity between the signs – 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 69-71)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2004 (Case R 379/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Quelle AG and Nars Cosmetics, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Nars Cosmetics, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark ‘NARS’ for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 – Application No 1333657 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Quelle AG Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark ‘MARS’ for goods in Class 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2007 – Assembled Investments (Proprietary) v OHIM – Waterford Wedgwood (WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH)

(Case T-105/05)

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

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(3)) (see para. 13)

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 27)

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 registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 27)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2004 (Case R 240/2004-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Waterford Wedgwood and Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH for goods in Class 33 – Application No 1438860 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Waterford Wedgwood plc Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community Word mark WATERFORD for goods in Classes 3, 8, 11, 21, 24 and 34 – Community mark No 397521 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled; application for registration dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2004 (Case R 240/2004-1);
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007 – Spain v Commission

(Case T-99/05)

Fisheries – Regulation (EC) No 494/2002 – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Legal basis – Principle of non-discrimination – Obligation to state reasons

1. Acts of the institutions – Choice of legal basis – Criteria – Commission regulation for the recovery of the stock of hake (Council Regulation No 3760/92, Art. 15(1), and No 850/98, Art. 45(1); Commission Regulation No 494/2002) (see paras 21-26)

2. Fisheries – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Regulation No 850/98 (Council Regulation No 850/98, Art. 45(1)) (see para. 27)

3. Fisheries – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Commission regulation for the recovery of the stock of hake (Council Regulation No 850/98; Commission Regulation No 494/2002) (see paras 28-31)

4. Fisheries – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Commission regulation for the recovery of the stock of hake (Commission Regulation No 494/2002 Art. 2(2)) (see paras 43-45)

5. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 59-61)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 494/2002 of 19 March 2002 establishing additional technical measures for the recovery of the stock of hake in ICES sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and VII and ICES divisions VIII a, b, d, e (OJ 2002 L 77, p. 8)

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 12 September 2007 – Cain Cellars v OHIM (Device of a pentagon)

(Case T-304/05)

Community trade mark – Application for a figurative Community trade mark consisting of the device of a pentagon – Absolute ground for refusal – Absence of distinctive character – Simplicity of the sign

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 23-26)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2005 (Case R 975/2004-1) concerning the registration of the device of a pentagon as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Cain Cellars, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Pentagonal figurative mark for the goods ‘wine’ in Class 33 – Application No 3425121 Decision of the Examiner: Application for registration dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2008 – Apple Computer v OHIM – TKS-Teknosoft (QUARTZ)

(Case T-328/05)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark QUARTZ – Earlier Community figurative mark QUARTZ – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity between goods – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute 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 56, 58-60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 April 2005 (Case R 416/2004-4) relating to opposition proceedings between TKS-Teknosoft SA and Apple Computer, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Apple Computer, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark QUARTZ for goods in Class 9 – Application No 1421130 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: TKS-Teknosoft SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark QUARTZ for goods in Classes 9 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in respect of all the goods at issue Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;