natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvad angår en blød og blåfarvet skimmelost, hvis ydre fremtræden ikke er uden lighed med »Gorgonzola«-ost, synes det rimeligt at antage, at der foreligger en antydning af en beskyttet betegnelse, når det udtryk, der anvendes som benævnelse for dette produkt, ender med de to samme stavelser som den beskyttede betegnelse og indeholder samme antal stavelser som denne, således at der opstår et klart fonetisk og optisk slægtskab mellem de to udtryk.
However, it is not for the Court, when ruling on the interpretation of Regulation No 2081/92, to decide on the effect of the provisions of national and international law which protected designations of origin in Austria before such protection was guaranteed by Community law. Only the national court before which the case is pending is in a position to carry out an analysis of that nature.
Artikel 13, stk. 1, litra b), i forordning nr. 2081/92 bestemmer desuden udtrykkeligt, at angivelsen af produktets virkelige oprindelse på emballagen eller på anden måde ikke har nogen betydning for, hvorledes det skal kvalificeres under hensyn til de begreber, som er anført i dette litra.
Since the product at issue is a soft blue cheese which is not dissimilar in appearance to 'Gorgonzola', it would seem reasonable to conclude that a protected name is indeed evoked where the term used to designate that product ends in the same two syllables and contains the same number of syllables, with the result that the phonetic and visual similarity between the two terms is obvious.
Da anvendelsen af et mærke som »Cambozola« udgør et sådant tilfælde, hvor der gælder en beskyttelse af registrerede betegnelser, må det undersøges, om de betingelser, som er fastsat i artikel 14, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 2081/92 for den fortsatte anvendelse af et tidligere registreret mærke er opfyldt.
Article 13(l)(b) of Regulation No 2081/92 also expressly provides that the indication of the true origin of the product on its packaging or otherwise has no bearing on the application to that product of the concepts referred to in that subparagraph.
Mærket skal for det første være registreret i god tro inden datoen for indgivelsen af ansøgningen om registrering af oprindelsesbetegnelsen eller den geografiske betegnelse.
As to that, the circumstances contemplated in Article 3(l)((c) of the First Directive 89/104 do not apply to the present case.
Sagsøgeren i hovedsagen har herom anført, at de bestemmelser, som fraviger artikel 13, der vedrører beskyttelsen af betegnelserne, skal fortolkes snævert, og at registreringen af mærket »Cambozola« i Østrig ikke er sket i god tro i artikel 14, stk. 2's forstand, da den allerede fra begyndelsen har været ulovlig.
Since use of a trade mark such as 'Cambozola' corresponds to one of the sets of circumstances in which registered names are to enjoy protection, it must next be determined whether the conditions laid down in Article 14(2) of Regulation No 2081/92 are satisfied, so as to
I 1983, da mærket »Cambozola« blev registreret i Østrig, nød betegnelsen »Gorgonzola« nemlig i del
Once again it is for the national court to apply those tests to the facts of the case before it.
Det tilkommer dog ikke Domstolen ved fortolkningen af forordning nr. 2081/92 at udtale sig om virkningen af de internationale og nationale bestemmelser, som beskyttede oprindelsesbetegnelserne i Østrig, før denne beskyttelse blev sikret ved fællesskabsrettens bestemmelser. Kun den nationale ret, hvor hvem tvisten verserer, kan foretage denne analyse.
'In the present state of Community law, the principle of the free movement of goods does not preclude Member States from taking the measures incumbent upon them in order to ensure the protection of designations of origin registered under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs.
Det bemærkes, at der ikke i denne sag foreligger det tilfælde, som er omhandlet i artikel 3, stk. 1, litra c), i første direktiv 89/1Ü4.
Use of a name such as "Cambozola' may therefore be deemed, for the purposes of Article 13(l)(b) of that regulation, to evoke the protected designation of origin 'Gorgonzola', irrespective of the fact that the packaging indicates the products true origin.
Efter de to øvrige relevante bestemmelser i dette direktiv forudsætter de tilfælde, hvor mærket afslås registreret, hvor det erklæres ugyldigt eller hvor indehaverens rettigheder dertil fortabes, og som forhindrer, at det fortsat kan bruges i henhold til artikel 14, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 2081/92, at der må antages at foreligge en effektiv vildledning eller en tilstrækkeligt alvorlig risiko for vildledning af forbrugerne.
It is for the national court to decide whether, on the facts, the conditions laid down in Article 14(2) of Regulation No 2081/92 allow use of an earlier trade mark to continue notwithstanding the registration of the protected designation of origin "Gorgonzola", having regard in particular to the law in force at the time of registration of the trade mark, in order to determine whether such registration could have been made in good faith, on the basis that use of a name such as "Cambozola" does not, per se, constitute an attempt to deceive the consumer.'
»På fællesskabsrettens nuværende udviklingstrin er princippet om frie varebevægelser ikke til hinder for, at en medlemsstat træffer nødvendige foranstaltninger for at sikre beskyttelsen af oprindelsesbetegnelser, som er registreret efter Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2081/92 af 14. juli 1992 om beskyttelse af geografiske betegnelser og oprindelsesbetegnelser for landbrugsprodukter og levnedsmidler.
(1) Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that a designation of origin registered pursuant to that regulation is to be protected against another name on the basis that that name is an evocation of the designation of origin within the meaning of Article 13(l)(b) of the regulation where (i) there is a substantial degree of phonetic similarity between the name and the designation of origin and (ii) the name and the designation of origin are used in a very similar sector of the market; that is the case with the registered designation of origin 'Gorgonzola' and the name 'Cambozola' used for another soft blue cheese.
Herved kan anvendelsen af en betegnelse som 'Cambozola' kvalificeres som en antydning i den forstand, hvori dette udtryk er anvendt i forordningens artikel 13, stk 1, litra b), af den beskyttede oprindelsesbetegnelse »Gorgonzola·, uden at angivelsen af produktets virkelige oprindelse på emballagen kan ændre denne kvatifikation.
(2) It makes no difference for that purpose that the second product carries a statement that it is made in a country which is not the Member State where the product with the designated protection of origin is made.
Det tilkommer den nationale ret at afgøre, om betingelserne i artikel 14, stk 2, i forordning nr. 2081/92 i den foreliggende sag tillader fortsat brug af det tidligere registrerede mærke trods registreringen af den beskyttede oprindelsesbetegnelse 'Gorgonzola', idet retten ved vurderingen af, om registreringen af mærket er sket i god tro, navnlig skal lage hensyn til den gældende retstilstand på registreringstidspunktet, idet en betegnelse som 'Cambozola', ikke i sig selv kan karakteriseres som udgørende en vildledning af forbrugerne. ·
(3) However where as in the present case the name was registered as a trade mark before the date on which the application for registration of the protected designation of origin was lodged, use of the name must be allowed to continue pursuant to Article 14(2) of the regulation if
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet fFemte Afdeling') den 17. december 1998.
(i) it was registered in good faith, which will be the case if the owner of the mark took all reasonable steps at the time of its registration to satisfy himself that use of the mark was compatible with the national law (including any applicable international provisions); and
m.fl. / Kommissionen for De Europæiske
the goods, not merely by the similarity of the mark but in consequence of the use made of it by or with the consent of the owner.
4. marts 1999 opgave i
4 March 1999 task
»Appel konkurrence — frifindelse for pastand om annullation - Kommissionens henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 85 og 86 - vurdering af fællesskabsinteressen· (Femte Afdeling)
(Appeal — Competition — Dismissal of an application for annulment — Commission's under Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty — Assessment of Community interest) (Fifth Chamber) subsidiary Société Française de Messageries Internationales (hereinafter 'SFMI'), which operates in the international express mail sector.
Den 21. december 1990 indgav SFEI, DHL International, Service CRIE og May Courier en klage til Kommissionen med henblik på at få fastslået, at det franske postvæsen (herefter »La Poste«) bl.a. havde tilsidesat traktatens artikel 86.
The abuse by La Poste was alleged to have consisted in allowing SFMI to make use of its infrastructure on unusually favourable terms in order to extend its dominant position on the basic postal service market to the associated market in international express mail.
For så vidt angår artikel 86 klagede sagsøgerne over den logistiske og kommercielle bistand, som La Poste hævdedes at yde sit datterselskab, Société française de messageries internationales (herefter »SFMI«), som opererer på markedet for international kurertjeneste. Ifølge sagsøgerne bestod misbruget i, at La Poste lod SFMI drage fordel af sin infrastruktur på unormalt fordelagtige vilkår med henblik på at udvide den dominerende stilling, La Poste havde på markedet for almindelig postbefordring, til også at omfatte det hermed forbundne marked for international kurertjeneste.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 22 March 1997, Union Française de l'Express (Ufex), formerly Syndicat Français de l'Express International (hereinafter 'SFEI'), DHL International and Service CRIE brought an appeal against the judgment of 15 January 1997 in SFEI and Others ν Commission [1997] (hereinafter 'the contested judgment'), in which the Court of First Instance dismissed their application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 30 December 1994 rejecting the complaint brought by them under Article 86 of the EC Treaty (hereinafter 'the contested decision').
Den 28. oktober 1994 sendte Kommissionen SFEI en skrivelse i medfør af artikel 6 i Kommissionens forordning nr. 99/63/EØF af 25. juli 1963 om udtalelser i henhold til artikel 19, stk. 1 og 2, i Rådets forordning nr. 17, hvori den gav udtryk for, at den agtede at afvise klagen.
On 28 October 1994 the Commission sent SFEI a letter pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63/EEC of the Commission of 25 July 1963 on the hearings provided for in Article 19(1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 17, informing it that it proposed to reject the complaint.
Efter at have modtaget SFEI's bemærkninger traf Kommissionen den omtvistede beslutning.
After receiving SFEI's observations, the Commission adopted the contested decision.
Ved stævning indleveret den 6. marts 1995 anlagde SFEI, DHL International, Service CRIE og May Courier annullationssøgsmål ved Retten, idet de bl.a. gjorde gældende, at der var sket en tilsidesættelse af traktatens artikel 86, af reglerne om vurderingen af fællesskabsinteressen og af princippet om god forvaltningsskik, lighedsprincippet og forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling. De påberåbte sig også magtfordrejning fra Kommissionens side.
On 21 December 1990 SFEI, DHL International, Service CRIE and May Courier lodged a complaint with the Commission, seeking a declaration inter alia, that La Poste, the French Post Office, was in breach of Article 86 of the Treaty.
Kommissionen blev derfor frifundet, og det blev pålagt sagsøgerne at betale sagens omkostninger.
With respect to Article 86, the applicants complained of the logistical and commercial assistance allegedly given by La Poste to its
Det skal hertil blot bemærkes, at Retten med rette antog, at hele beslutningen var baseret på den manglende interesse for Fællesskabet.
The third plea in law the Treaty, breach of the rules on the assessment of Community interest, and breach of the principles of good administration, equal treatment and non-discrimination.
Kommissionen tog nemlig igennem hele beslutningen stilling til, om det var hensigtsmæssigt, at Kommissionen på ny greb ind på el område, hvor den allerede havde taget initiativer som grønbogen, retningslinjerne og GD Net-beslutningen.
The Court of First Instance consequently dismissed the application and ordered the applicants to pay the costs.
Da disse initiativer alene blev nævnt i denne sammenhæng, kan de ikke betragtes som selvstændige begrundelser for afvisningen af klagen.
In their third plea in law, the appellants submit that, should it appear that the Court of First Instance did not err in law in accepting that the Commission gave reasons for the contested decision by referring to the GD Net decision, the contested judgment should be annulled on the ground of contradictory reasoning.
Det andet anbringende
The first plea in law
Som deres andet anbringende gør appellanterne gældende, at Retten har begået en retlig fejl ved at fastslå, at Kommissionen som grundlag for den omtvistede beslutning kunne henvise til en anden beslutning.
In the first part of their first plea the appellants submit that the Court of First Instance misconstrued the contested decision by not accepting that it was based on two distinct grounds, namely the existence of the Green Paper on postal services in the single market and the Guidelines for the development of Community postal services on the one hand and the decision of 2 December 1991 in Case No IV/M C02 (GD Net) on the other.
Retten har ikke begået en retlig fejl ved at godkende, at Kommissionen i den omtvistede beslutning henviste til GD Net-beslutningen og antog, at denne havde bragt de i klagen omhandlede former for praksis til ophør, i betragtning af at den var retligt bindende for La Poste, der som følge af fusionen trak sig tilbage fra markedet for internationale kurertjenester.
Moreover, the reference to the GD Net decision is limited in scope since, first, it supports the premise that even if the practices complained of had in fact taken place in the past, that decision had caused them to cease, and, second, it does not concern the Commission's assessment of those practices from the point of view of Article 86 in the GD Net decision.
Som deres tredje anbringende gør appellanterne gældende, at såfremt Domstolen måtte finde, at Retten ikke har begået en retlig fejl ved at godkende, at Kommissionen begrundede den omtvistede beslutning med en henvisning til GD Net-beslutningen, bør den appellerede dom ophæves, fordi begrundelsen er selvmodsigende.
In their fourth plea in law, the appellants criticise the Court of First Instance for failing to undertake the inquiries necessary to ascertain whether the Commission was in a position to confirm the alleged absence of cross-subsidies between La Poste and its subsidiary.
Det skal blot bemærkes, at Retten begrænsede sig til at fastslå, at Kommissionen i den omtvistede beslutning afviste klagen, fordi sagen ikke havde tilstrækkelig interesse for Fællesskabet, og at den derfor ikke var forpligtet til at bedømme de omtvistede former for praksis på grundlag af traktatens artikel 86.
Throughout the decision the Commission considered whether it was appropriate for it to intervene again in a field in which it had already taken initiatives such as the Green Paper, the Guidelines and the GD Net decision.
Rækkevidden af henvisningen til GD Net-beslutningen er i øvrigt begrænset, da den for det første tjener til at fremføre den antagelse, at selv om de kritiserede former for praksis faktisk tidligere havde fundet sted, var de blevet bragt til ophør som følge af GD Net-beslutningen, og da den for det andet ikke vedrører den bedømmelse af de pågældende former for praksis, som Kommissionen måtte have foretaget på grundlag af traktatens artikel 86 i GD Net-beslutningen.
As those initiatives were mentioned only in that perspective, they may not be regarded as independent grounds for the rejection of the complaint.
Som deres fjerde anbringende gør appellanterne gældende, at Retten ikke har foretaget de nødvendige undersøgelser med henblik på at kontrollere, om Kommissionen var i stand til at konstatere, at der, som hævdet, ikke forelå krydssubsidiering mellem La Poste og datterselskabet.
In their second plea the appellants complain that the Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that the Commission could refer to another decision as a basis for the contested decision.
Det skal hertil blot bemærkes, at Rettens vurdering af de beviser, der er fremført for den, ikke udgør et retsspørgsmål og dermed ikke er undergivet Domstolens prøvelsesret i forbindelse med appellen, medmindre de er gengivet forkert, eller det fremgår af de fremlagte dokumenter, at Rettens konstateringer er materielt urigtige, hvilket appellanterne ikke gør gældende.
On this point, it need only be observed that the appraisal by the Court of First Instance of the evidence put before it does not constitute a point of law which is subject to review by the Court of Justice on appeal, except where the clear sense of that evidence has been distorted or the substantive inaccuracy of the Court of First Instance's findings is apparent from the documents in the case-file which the appellants do not maintain.
Med det femte anbringende gør appellanterne gældende, at Retten ikke lovligt kunne udlede af sagsakterne, at Kommissionen havde fornødent grundlag for at fastslå, at overtrædelserne var bragt til ophør, da GD Net-beslutningen blev truffet.
Action by the Commission in such circumstances is indeed part of its task of ensuring that a system of undistorted competition in the common market is established and maintained.
Eftersom Kommissionen og Retten fandt, at GD Net-beslutningen uafhængigt af de tilsagn, den foreskrev, var af en sådan karakter, at de kritiserede former for praksis blev bragt til ophør, vedrører det første led i det femte anbringende under alle omstændigheder et overflødigt punkt i begrundelsen for den appellerede dom, hvorfor det er irrelevant.
Since the Commission and the Court of First Instance considered that, regardless of the undertakings it provided for, the GD Net decision was likely to put an end to the practices complained of, it appears that the first part of the fifth plea addresses, in any event, a point which was not necessary for the reasoning of the contested judgment, and is consequently immaterial.
Det er herefter ufornødent at undersøge, om det pågældende led i anbringendet - som anført af appellanterne - rejser et retsspørgsmål, eller om det tværtimod henhører under Rettens vurdering af beviser, i hvilket tilfælde det må afvises.
There is therefore no need to consider whether, as the appellants submit, it raises a point of law or whether, by contrast, it concerns the appraisal of the evidence by the Court of First Instance, in which case it would be inadmissible.
Det sjette og det ottende anbringende
The sixth and eighth pleas in law
Som deres sjette anbringende gør appellanterne gældende, at Retten har begået en retlig fejl i vurderingen af fællesskabsinteressen.
In their sixth plea in law the appellants submit that the Court of First Instance erred in law in assessing the Community interest.
Det bemærkes, at eftersom vurderingen af en klages interesse for Fællesskabet afhænger af omstændighederne i hvert enkelt konkret tilfælde, bør antallet af kriterier, som Kommissionen kan lægge vægt på, ikke begrænses, og det bør modsat heller ikke pålægges Kommissionen udelukkende at anvende bestemte kriterier.
In their eighth plea in law the appellants submit that the statement by the Court of First Instance that the Commission was not obliged to refer to the factors defined in the case-law when assessing whether or not there was a Community interest in continuing with the examination of a complaint constitutes a breach of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment.
Inden for et område som konkurrenceretten kan de faktiske og retlige omstændigheder være meget forskellige fra sag til sag, hvorfor det står Retten frit for at anvende kriterier, der ikke tidligere er blevet taget i betragtning.
Second, when deciding the order of priority for dealing with the complaints brought before it, the Commission may not regard as excluded in principle from its purview certain situations which come under the task entrusted to it by the Treaty.
Som deres syvende anbringende gør appellanterne gældende, at Rettens opfattelse af Kommissionens opgave i forbindelse med overvågningen af, at traktatens artikel 86 overholdes, er urigtig.
In view of the fact that the assessment of the Community interest raised by a complaint depends on the circumstances of each case, the number of criteria of assessment the Commission may refer to should not be limited, nor conversely should it be required to have recourse exclusively to certain criteria.
En indgriben fra Kommissionens side under sådanne omstændigheder ligger absolut inden for rammerne af Kommissionens opgave, som er at etablere og opretholde en ordning, der indebærer, at konkurrencen inden for fællesmarkedet ikke fordrejes.
If anticompetitive effects continue after the practices which caused them have ceased, the Commission thus remains competent under Articles 2, 3(g) and 86 of the Treaty to act with a view to eliminating or neutralising them.
Kommissionen, som efter EF-traktatens artikel 89, stk. 1, har til opgave at påse, at de i traktatens artikel 85 og 86 fastlagte principper anvendes, skal fastlægge og gennemføre den fælles konkurrencepolitik.
In a field such as competition law, the factual and legal circumstances may differ considerably from case to case, so that it is permissible for the Court of First Instance to apply criteria which have not hitherto been considered.
Den skønsbeføjelse, Kommissionen råder over i denne forbindelse, er imidlertid ikke ubegrænset.
In deciding to discontinue consideration of a complaint against those practices on the ground of lack of Community interest, the Commission therefore cannot rely solely on the fact that practices alleged to be contrary to the Treaty have ceased, without having ascertained that anticompetitive effects no longer continue and, if appropriate, that the seriousness of the alleged
For det første er Kommissionen undergivet en begrundelsespligt, når den afviser at fortsætte behandlingen af en klage.
In their seventh plea in law, the appellants submit that the view taken by the Court of First Instance of the Commission's role in reviewing
Kommissionen skal i denne forbindelse i hvert enkelt tilfælde vurdere, hvor grove de påståede indgreb i konkurrencen er, og om de fortsat har virkninger.
interferences with competition or the persistence of their consequences has not been such as to give the complaint a Community interest.
Såfremt der fortsat består konkurrencebegrænsende virkninger, efter at de former for praksis, der har forårsaget dem, er bragt ti! ophør, har Kommissionen således stadig i henhold til traktatens artikel 2, artikel 3, litra g), og artikel 86 kompetence til al gribe ind for at fjerne eller neutralisere de pågældende virkninger.
It must be stated that the Court of First Instance could not reject the appellants' request to order production of a document which was apparently material to the outcome of the case on the ground that the document had not been produced and there was nothing to confirm its existence.