ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
93

Second, the applicant states that the provision under a monopoly arrangement of services in the public interest by municipalities and municipal undertakings has been exempt from tax since the beginning of the last century. The applicant refers in particular to decreto del Presidente della Repubblica n. 917 (sulla) approvazione del testo unico delle imposte sui redditi (Presidential Decree No 917 approving the consolidated text of the law on income tax of 22 December 1986, Ordinary Supplement to GURI No 302 of ). It draws attention to the fact that the Commission had never previously contested that exemption. According to the applicant, there was continuity between, on the one hand, the tax system from which municipalities and municipal undertakings benefited in terms of operating public utilities and, on the other, the three-year income tax exemption enjoyed by companies set up under Law No 142/90. In fact, municipal undertakings and companies set up under Law No 142/90 embody, in essence, the same entity in different legal forms. The companies set up under Law No 142/90 assumed the rights and obligations of the municipal undertakings. The rationale for the three-year income tax exemption is to be found in the absence of competition, which was a feature of the markets in question both prior to the entry into force of the EC Treaty and during the period from 1997 to 1999. The legal form of the undertaking responsible for performing public services is therefore of no importance. Moreover, the reforms carried out by the Italian legislature in the 1990s changed nothing apart from the legal form and treatment of the operators in question. It is a normal legal instrument suitable for the purpose of facilitating the changeover to the competitive system in the sectors in question. However, the Commission has failed to explain in the contested decision the reason for which the principle of continuity applied at recital 78 in the preamble to that decision is not applicable for the purpose of classifying the three-year income tax exemption as existing aid.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Simultaneous use of several signs

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 15(2)(a) and 43(2) and (3))

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 – Figurative mark comprising the word element ‘CRISTAL CASTELLBLANCH’ and the word mark ‘CRISTAL’

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

Summary

1. Proof of genuine use of an earlier national or Community trade mark which forms the basis of an opposition against a Community trade mark application also includes proof of use of the earlier mark together with other signs, in so far as such use does not alter the distinctive character of that mark in the form under which it was registered.

(see paras 30-34)

2. For the average French consumer and professionals and specialists from the wine-growing and restaurant sectors there is a likelihood of confusion between the figurative sign comprising the word element ‘CRISTAL CASTELLBLANCH’, in respect of which registration is sought as a Community trade mark for ‘Spanish sparkling wines of the cava variety’, belonging to Class 33 of the Nice Agreement and the word mark CRISTAL registered earlier in France for ‘wines originating from France, namely Champagne, sparkling wines and alcoholic beverages (except beers)’ belonging to that same class, even though renown or reputation of the earlier mark for ‘wines from Champagne’ cannot be found for the whole of the public but only for professional consumers who are highly specialised in the field, given the identity or, at least, the high degree of similarity between the goods in dispute and the similarity of the respective signs.

(see paras 46, 67-68)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(3) and (6)) (see paras 15-18, 44-47)

2. Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Compliance with rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see paras 28-30, 41-42)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2004 (Case R 104/2001-4) concerning registration of a mark in the form of a frosted matt black bottle as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

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 11 February 2004 (Case R 104/2001-4);

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Own resources of the European Communities

–

Repayment or remission of import or export duties (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239) (see paras 44-46, 70, 73-74, 92-94

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision REM 19/2002 of 17 June 2004 finding the remission of import duties in a particular case to be unjustified.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application.

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as those incurred by the Commission.
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 32-40

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPEAL against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 April 2004 (Case R 435/2003-2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark HAIRTRANSFER as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, L da to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Time-limit for producing evidence (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 48(1) and 66(2)) (see paras 59, 65)

2. Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC; Council Decision Nos 87/516 and 88/416) (see paras 72-73, 75)

3. Procedure – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2)) (see para 112)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION by the Commission under an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC seeking an order that Trends reimburse the Commission in the sum of EUR 195 435 plus contractual interest or, in the alternative, plus default interest.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses the interlocutory application;

3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs except for those arising from the interlocutory application;

4. Orders Transport Environment Development Systems (Trends) to pay the costs of the interlocutory application.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Products processed from fruit and vegetables – Production aid (Council Regulation No 2201/96, Art. 2; Commission Regulation No 504/97, Art. 7(2)) (see paras 32-33, 57-62, 74, 76)

2. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Principles (Council Regulations Nos 729/70, Art. 3(1), and 1258/1999, Art. 2(2)) (see paras 35-39, 54-56)

3. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Council Regulations Nos 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c), and 1258/1999, Art. 7(4), subpara. 5; Commission Regulation No 1663/95, as amended by Regulation No 2245/1999, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 44-45, 87, 98-107, 122, 127, 135, 145)

4. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Regulation prescribing specific control measures (see paras 128-129)

5. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1760/2000; Commission Regulations Nos 3887/92, Art. 6(6a), and 2629/97, Art. 8) (see paras 157, 159)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/561/EC of 16 July 2004 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 2004 L 250, p. 21) inasmuch as it excludes certain expenditure by the Hellenic Republic in the sectors of products processed from fruit and vegetables and animal premiums.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for damages – Subject-matter – Compensation claim against the Community under Article 288, second paragraph, EC – Exclusive jurisdiction of the Court – Review of the nature of the action – Application for refund of anti-dumping duties paid pursuant to a Community regulation claimed to be unlawful – Jurisdiction of the national courts (Arts 234, first para., (b), EC, 235 EC and 288, second para, EC; Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 243 to 246) (see paras 43, 45, 47-48, 51, 54, 56, 63, 66, 70-73, 114-115)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Causal link – Burden of proof – Break in the causal link by reason of the wrongful conduct of the applicant (Arts 235 EC and 288 EC) (see paras 100-103, 113-117, 121-124, 126-134)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for compensation under Article 288 EC, in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants by reason of the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive anti‑dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non‑alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the Republic of Croatia (OJ 1997 L 322, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Trubowest Handel GmbH and Victor Makarov to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the Council and the Commission.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2005 − RB Square Holdings Spain v OHIM – Unelko (clean x)

(Case T-384/04)

Community trade mark – Figurative mark containing the word element ‘clean x’ – Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word and figurative marks CLEN – Rejection of the opposition – 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 – Figurative mark including the word element ‘clean x’ and word and figurative marks CLEN (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2004 (Case R 652/2002-4) relating to opposition proceedings between RB Square Holdings Spain, SL and Unelko NV.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Unelko NV Community trade mark sought Figurative mark ‘clean x’ – Application No 222471, for goods in Class 3 (bleaching preparations, etc.) Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: RB Square Holdings Spain, SL Mark or sign sited in opposition: National word and figurative mark ‘CLEN’ Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the action





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2006 – Hammarplast v OHIM – Steninge Slott (STENINGE SLOTT)

(Case T-499/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark STENINGE SLOTT – Earlier word mark STENINGE KERAMIK – Likelihood of confusion

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(1)) (see para. 20)

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 paras 62-63)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2004 (Case R 394/2003-2) concerning the opposition filed by the holder of the national trade mark STENINGE KERAMIK against registration of the Community trade mark STENINGE SLOTT.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Steninge Slott AB Community trade mark sought: Word mark STENINGE SLOTT for goods in Class 21 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Hammarplast AB Mark or sign cited in opposition: National mark STENINGE KERAMIK for goods in the same class Decision of the Opposition Division: Refusal of registration Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 5 April 2006 − Kachakil Amar v OHIM (longitudinal line ending with a triangle)

(Case T-388/04)

Community trade mark – Figurative mark in the form of a longitudinal line ending with a triangle – Refusal to register – Lack of distinctive character – Acquisition of a distinctive character through use

Community trade marks – 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(3)) (see points 39-42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 July 2004 (R 175/2004-1) which refused to register the figurative mark ‘Longitudinal line ending with a triangle’ as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case:

Applicant for the Community trade mark: –– Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark consisting of a longitudinal line ending with a triangle – Application No 3.235.157 for goods in Class 25 (clothes, shoes, hats, including sports shoes) Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: –– Mark or sign cited: –– Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the application, the mark being considered as falling under the absolute grounds for refusal referred to in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 February 2007 – Indorata-Serviços e Gestão v OHIM (HAIRTRANSFER)

(Case T-204/04)

Community trade mark – Application for Community trade mark HAIRTRANSFER – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(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 32-40)

Re:

APPEAL against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 April 2004 (Case R 435/2003-2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark HAIRTRANSFER as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Lda Community trade mark sought: Word mark HAIRTRANSFER for goods in Classes 8, 22, 41 and 44 – Application No 2619039 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the appeal;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2007 – Mülhens v OHIM – Cara (TOSKA LEATHER)

(Case T-28/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for figurative Community trade mark TOSKA LEATHER – Earlier national word mark TOSCA – Relative grounds for refusal – Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark well known in a Member State (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31-32)

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 enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 57-59)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 November 2003 (Case R 10/2003-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG and Mirco Cara.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Mirco Cara Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark TOSKA LEATHER for goods in Classes 16, 18 and 25 – Application No 1079888 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark TOSCA for perfumery products Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed for products in Class 25 and dismissed as to the remainder Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 20 September 2007 – Imagination Technologies v OHIM (PURE DIGITAL)

(Case T-461/04)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark PURE DIGITAL – Absolute grounds for refusal – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) of Regulation 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 – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 36-37, 54)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2004 (Case R 108/2004-2), concerning an application for the registration of the word mark PURE DIGITAL as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Imagination Technologies Ltd Community trade mark sought: Word mark PURE DIGITAL for goods and services in classes 9 and 38 – Application No 2396075 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 (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2008 – Trubowest Handel and Makarov v Council and Commission

(Case T-429/04)

Non-contractual liability – Anti-dumping duties – Anti-dumping Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 – Lawyers’ fees incurred in domestic proceedings – Inadmissibility – Material and non-material damage – Causal link

1. Actions for damages – Subject-matter – Compensation claim against the Community under Article 288, second paragraph, EC – Exclusive jurisdiction of the Court – Review of the nature of the action – Application for refund of anti-dumping duties paid pursuant to a Community regulation claimed to be unlawful – Jurisdiction of the national courts (Arts 234, first para., (b), EC, 235 EC and 288, second para, EC; Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 243 to 246) (see paras 43, 45, 47-48, 51, 54, 56, 63, 66, 70-73, 114-115)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Causal link – Burden of proof – Break in the causal link by reason of the wrongful conduct of the applicant (Arts 235 EC and 288 EC) (see paras 100-103, 113-117, 121-124, 126-134)

Re:

APPLICATION for compensation under Article 288 EC, in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants by reason of the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive anti‑dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non‑alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the Republic of Croatia (OJ 1997 L 322, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2008 – Camar v Commission

(Joined Cases T-457/04 and T-223/05)

Common organisation of the markets – Bananas – Transitional measures – Article 30 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 – Judgment finding that the Commission had failed to act – Failure to give effect to a judgment of the Court – Action for annulment – Application for an order that effect be given to the judgment by way of financial equivalent – Compensation for non-material damage – Unlawful failure to act on the part of the Commission – Action for damages – Suspension of the limitation period – Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Obligation to implement (Arts 230 EC, 232 EC, 233 EC and 288, para. 2, EC) (see paras 39-41, 49-50)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Failure to fulfil the obligation to implement an annulling judgment (Art. 288, para. 2, EC) (see paras 57-58, 60-62)

3. Actions for damages – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Limitation period of five years (Art. 288, para. 2, EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 75, 77, 79-80)

Re:

In Case T‑457/04, application, first, for annulment of the Commission's decision not to give effect to paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of 8 June 2000, Camar and Tico v Commission and Council (Joined Cases T‑79/96, T‑260/97 and T‑117/98 [2000] ECR II‑2193), contained in the letter of 10 September 2004, secondly, for an order that the Commission give effect to paragraph 1 of the operative part of the abovementioned judgment in Camar and Tico v Commission and Council by the financial equivalent of the value of the certificates that it has not issued and, thirdly, for an order that the Commission pay compensation for non-material loss, and in Case T‑223/05, application for an order that the Commission pay compensation, on the basis of the non-contractual liability of the European Community, for the loss which the applicant has suffered.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Commission contained in the letter of 10 September 2004 from the Director General of the Directorate General ‘Agriculture’ refusing to give effect to paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of 8 June 2000, Camar and Tico v Commission and Council (Joined Cases T‑79/96, T‑260/97 and T‑117/98 [2000] ECR II‑2193);

2. For the rest, dismisses the action in Case T‑457/04 as unfounded;

3. Dismisses the action in Case T‑223/05 as inadmissible;

4. In Case T‑457/04, orders Camar Srl and the Commission each to bear half of their own costs and to pay half of the costs of the other party;