natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Herved har Retten ikke efterprøvet, om den omtvistede ordkombination kunne tænkes at blive anvendt af andre erhvervsdrivende for at betegne en egenskab ved deres varer og tjenesteydelser.
By an application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 17 April 2001, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (hereinafter 'OHIM') brought an appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2001 in Case T-193/99 Wrigley ν OHIM (DOUBLEMINT) [2001], in which the Court of First Instance annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 1999 (Case R 216/1998-1) dismissing the appeal lodged by Wm. Wrigley Jr.
Heraf følger, at Retten har fejlbedømt rækkevidden af artikel 7, stk 1, litra c), i forordning nr. 40/94.
Company against the refusal to register the word DOUBLEMINT as a Community trade mark for various classes of goods including in particular chewing gum.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
Facts of the case
»1) Den af De Europæiske Fællesskabers Ret i Første Instans afsagte dom af 31. januar 2001 i sag T-193/99, Wrigley mod KHIM (DOUBLEMINT), ophæves.
On 29 March 1996 Wrigley applied to OHIM for registration as a Community trade mark of the word DOUBLEMINT for goods within, inter aha, Classes 3, 5 and 30 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 17 June 957, as revised and amended, in particular chewing gum.
3) Afgørelsen om sagens omkostninger udsættes.*
¡e examiner at OHIM rejected that application by decision of 13 October 1998, following which Wrigley brought an appeal before OHIM.
Generaladvokat F. G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 10. april 2003.
By the contested decision, the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dismissed the appeal on the ground that the word DOUBLEMINT, a combination of two English words with no additional fanciful or imaginative element, was descriptive of certain characteristics of the goods in question, namely their mint-based composition and their mint flavour, and that it could therefore not be registered as a Community trade mark by virtue of Article 7(l)(c) of Regulation No 40/94.
Retten
The appeal
»Konkurrence — bilforhandling — artikel 81 EF — forordning (EØF) nr. 123/85 og (EF) nr. 1475/95 — markedsopdeling —generel strategi med henblik på begrænsning af eksporten — leveringsbegrænsning — restriktivt bonussystem — eksportforbud — bøde — overtrædebens grovhed og varighed —proportionalitet — retningslinjer for beregningen afbøder* (Anden Afdeling)
In the present case, the reason given by the Court of First Instance, at paragraph 20 of the contested judgment, for holding that the word at issue could not be refused registration under Article 7(l)(c) was that signs or indications whose meaning 'goes beyond the merely descriptive' are capable of being registered as Community trade marks and, at paragraph 31 of the contested judgment, that 'that term cannot be characterised as exclusively descriptive'.
General Motors Nederland opererer herefter udelukkende som et kontrollerende holdingselskab, der igen er helejet af General Motors Corporation, Detroit (De Forenede Stater).
In so doing, the Court of First Instance applied a test based on whether the mark is 'exclusively descriptive', which is not the test laid down by Article 7(l)(c) of Regulation No 40/94.
Opel Nederland er det eneste nationale salgsselskab for bilmærket »Opel« i Nederlandene.
It thereby failed to ascertain whether the word at issue was capable of being used by other economic operators to designate a characteristic of their goods and services.
Virksomheden beskæftiger sig ikke med produktion af køretøjer.
It follows that it erred as to the scope of Article 7(l)(c) of Regulation No 40/94.
Artikel 3, nr. 10, litra a), i begge forordninger giver fabrikanten og/eller hans importør tilladelse til at forbyde forhandlerne at levere aftalevarer og tilsvarende varer til en videreforhandler, der ikke tilhører salgsnettet.
Advocate General F. G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 10 April 2003.
Opel Nederland udarbejdede og vedtog i andet halvår 1996 en række foranstaltninger som svar på signaler om, at visse Opel-forhandlere foretog omfattende eksport
'(1) quash the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-193/99;
Den 28. og 29. august 1996 tilskrev Opel Nederland 18 forhandlere, som i løbet af første halvår 1996 havde eksporteret mindst 10 biler.
(3) order Wm Wrigley Jr Company to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.'
5) pirektør for salgspersonalet] Notenboom anmoder GMAC om at foretage en opgørelse af forhandlerlageret med henblik på at få afklaret, hvor mange biler dette stadig indeholder. Det forventes, at en stor del i mellemtiden er blevet eksporteret.
(Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Article 81 EC — Regulations (EEC) No 123/85 and (EC) No 1475/95 — Partitioning of the market — General strategy aimed at restricting exports — Restriction of supply — Restrictive bonus policy — Ban on exports — Fine — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Proportionality — Guidelines for the calculation of fines) (Second Chamber)
I forlængelse af skrivelserne af 28. og 29. august 1996 og forhandlernes besvarelser fremsendte Opel Nederland den 30. september 19% en ny skrivelse til de pågældende 18 forhandlere. I skrivelsen blev det anført:
Opel Nederland BV ('Opel Nederland') was established on 30 December 1994 as a 100% subsidiary of General Motors Nederland BV ('General Motors Nederland') and took over the latter's commercial activities in the Netherlands, thereby reducing the activities of General Motors Nederland to those of a controlling holding company, 100% owned by General Motors Corporation, established in Detroit (United States).
Før denne undersøgelse er afsluttet, vil De ikke få oplysninger om kampagnerne, da vi tvivler på, at Deres salgstal er korrekte [...].«
Its business activities comprise import, export and wholesale trade in motor vehicles and associated spare parts and accessories.
De bebudede revisioner fandt sted mellem den 19. september og den 27. november 1996.
It is, however, not involved in the production of Opel vehicles.
Den 24. oktober 1996 fremsendte Opel en rundskrivelse vedrørende salg til endelige forbrugere i udlandet til samtlige forhandlere. Ifølge rundskrivelsen kan forhandlerne frit sælge til endelige forbrugere bosat i Den Europæiske Union, og endelige forbrugere kan også gøre brug af en mellemmand.
It has concluded dealership agreements for sales and service with about 150 dealers who, as a result, are integrated in the Opel distribution network in Europe as authorised resellers.
På baggrund af oplysninger om, at Opel Nederland fulgte en strategi gående ud på systematisk at lægge hindringer i vejen for eksport af nye motorkøretøjer fra Nederlandene til andre medlemsstater vedtog Kommissionen den 4. december 1996 en beslutning om iværksættelse af kontrolundersøgelser efter artikel 14, stk. 3, i Rådets forordning nr. 17 af 6. februar 1962, første forordning om anvendelse af bestemmelserne i traktatens artikel [81] og [82].
Dealership contracts are, subject to certain conditions, exempted from the application of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December 1984 on the application of Article [81(3)] of the EEC Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements.
Kontrolundersøgelserne blev gennemført den 11. og 12. december 1996 hos Opel Nederland og de Van Twist, en Opel-forhandler i Dordrecht (Nederlandene).
That regulation was replaced, with effect from 1 October 1995, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995.
Ved rundskrivelse af 20. januar 1998 meddelte Opel Nederland sine forhandlere, at den manglende udbetaling af bonus ved eksportsalg var blevet ophævet med tilbagevirkende kraft.
However, the two regulations do not permit the manufacturer and/or its importer to prohibit dealers from supplying contract goods, or corresponding goods, to final consumers, their authorised intermediaries or other dealers who are part of the distribution network of the manufacturer and/or importer.
Den 21. april 1999 tilsendte Kommissionen sagsøgerne en meddelelse af klagepunkter.
In response to indications of large-scale exportation by some of its dealers, Opel Nederland has, since the second half of 1996, devised and adopted a series of measures.
Den 20. september 2000 vedtog Kommissionen beslutning 2001/146/EF om en procedure i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 81 (sag COMP/36.356 - Opel).
On 28 and 29 August 1996, Opel Nederland sent a letter to 18 dealers who, during the first half of 1996, had exported at least 10 vehicles.
Ved stævning indleveret til Rettens Justitskontor den 30. november 2000 har sagsøgerne anlagt denne sag.
At a meeting held on 26 September 1996, the management of Opel Nederland decided to adopt measures concerning exports from the Netherlands.
Ved den anfægtede beslutning pålagde Kommissionen sagsøgerne en bøde på 43 mio. EUR for tilsidesættelse af artikel 81, stk. 1, EF.
All known export dealers (20) will be audited by Opel Nederland BV.
A — Det første anbringende om bla. manglende bevis for, at Opel Nederland vedtog en generel politik, hvis formål var at begrænse enhver form for eksport
Mr Notenboom [Director of Sales Personnel] will ask GMAC to audit the dealer stock to establish the right number of units still present. It is expected that an important part could meanwhile have been exported.
Sagsøgerne har bestridt, at Opel Nederland på noget tidspunkt vedtog en strategi, hvis formål var at forhindre eller begrænse enhver form for eksport.
Following the letter of 28/29 August 1996 and the dealers' replies, Opel Nederland wrote a second letter to the 18 dealers concerned on 30 September 1996.
Β — Det andet anbringende om en faktisk og retlig fejl ved vurderingen af, at Opel Nederland iværksatte en restriktiv leveringspolitik i strid med artikel 81 EF
The audits announced took place between 19 September and 27 November 1996.
Sagsøgerne har erkendt, at Opel Nederland den 26. september 19% besluttede at meddele flere forhandlere, at hver forhandler som følge af leveringsproblemer indtil videre kun ville få tildelt det antal køretøjer, som var fastsat i forhandlerens salgsmål (»Sales Evaluation Guide«, herefter »SEG«).
On 24 October 1996, Opel Nederland sent all dealers a circular concerning sales to end users abroad.
Opel Nederland vurderede, at en forsyningsknaphed kunne begrunde en begrænsning af det antal køretøjer, som blev leveret til de 21 forhandlere, der var mistænkt for at foretage ulovligt salg.
According to that circular, dealers are free to sell to end users residing in the European Union and end users may also use the services of an intermediary.
Sagsøgerne har imidlertid for det første anført, at beslutningen af 26. september 19% om at bruge SEG til at begrænse tildelingen af køretøjer aldrig blev gennemført.
On 4 December 1996, having received information according to which Opel Nederland was pursuing a policy of systematically obstructing exports of new vehicles from the Netherlands to other Member States, the Commission adopted a decision ordering investigations under Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 17 of 6 February 1962: First Regulation implementing Articles [81] and [82] of the Treaty.
Ingen ordre blev på noget tidspunkt afvist med den begrundelse, at ordren ville medføre, at forhandleren overskred sin SEG eller en hvilken som helst anden kvota.
The investigations ordered were carried out on 11 and 12 December 1996 at the premises of Opel Nederland and van Twist, an Opel dealer in Dordrecht (Netherlands).
Sagsøgerne har dernæst anført, at beslutningen af 26. september 19% aldrig blev meddelt forhandlerne, som således ikke kan anses for at have indvilliget i en restriktiv leveringspolitik.
On 12 December 1996, Opel Nederland issued dealers with guidelines regarding the sale of new vehicles to resellers and intermediaries.
Retten finder ikke, at det er tilstrækkeligt godtgjort, at leveringsbegrænsningsforanstaltningen blev meddelt til forhandlerne, og at det end mindre er godtgjort, at denne foranstaltning indgik i kontraktforholdet mellem Opel Nederland og virksomhedens forhandlere.
By circular of 20 January 1998, Opel Nederland informed its dealers that the exclusion of payment of a bonus for an export sale had been removed with retrospective effect.
Det bemærkes, at det påhviler Kommissionen at
On 20 September 2000, the Commission adopted the contested decision.
indsamle et tilstrækkeligt præcist og samstemmende bevismateriale til, at den kan danne sig en fast overbevisning om, at den påståede overtrædelse har fundet sted.
By the contested decision, the Commission imposes on the applicants a fine of EUR 43 million for infringement of Article 81(1) EC.
Det følger heraf, at det andet anbringende kan tiltrædes, uden at det er fornødent at undersøge de øvrige argumenter, der er fremført i forbindelse med dette anbringende.
In that decision, it concludes that Opel Nederland entered into agreements with Opel dealers in the Netherlands aimed at restricting or prohibiting export sales of Opel vehicles to end users resident in other Member States and to Opel dealers established in other Member States.
Sagsøgerne har ikke bestridt, at eksportsalget til endelige forbrugere blev udelukket fra bonussystemet efter beslutningen af 26. september 19%.
(i) in September 1996, Opel Nederland adopted a general strategy aimed at restricting or preventing all export sales from the Netherlands;
Under hensyn til såvel karakteren af samt de med foranstaltningen forfulgte mål må det i lyset af den økonomiske sammenhæng, hvori foranstaltningen skulle anvendes, i overensstemmelse med fast praksis fastslås, at denne udgør en aftale, der har til formål at begrænse konkurrencen.
(ii) Opel Nederland's general strategy was implemented through individual measures which were adopted by mutual consent with dealers as part of the practical implementation of the dealership contracts and which became an integral part of Opel Nederland's contractual relations with dealers in its selective distribution system in the Netherlands.
D — Det fjerde anbringende om en faktisk og retlig fejl i forbindelse med vurderingen af, at Opel Nederland iværksatte et direkte eksportforbud, som var i strid med artikel 81 EF
A — The first plea in law, alleging lack of proof that Opel Nederland adopted a general policy aimed at restricting all exports
Sagsøgerne har indledningsvis bemærket, at de ikke udelukker, at visse af Opel Nederlands distriktschefer kan have misforstået rækkevidden af beslutningen af 26. september 19%, hvis eneste formål var at standse eksporten til ikke autoriserede forhandlere, og at de under individuelle samtaler med visse forhandlere kan have givet det fejlagtige indtryk, at Opel Nederland søgte at begrænse enhver form for eksport, eller har undladt at reagere på forhandlernes »tilsagn«, som var for vidtgående.
The applicants deny that Opel Nederland ever adopted a strategy to prevent or restrict all exports without distinction. A proper reading of the documents on which the Commission relies, in particular the minutes of the meeting of 26 September 1996, reveals that the strategy was aimed solely at limiting irregular export sales to unauthorised resellers and not at restricting lawful export sales to final consumers or other dealers.
Retten finder, at Kommissionen har indsamlet et tilstrækkeligt præcist og samstemmende bevismateriale til, at den kan danne sig en fast overbevisning om, at ni forhandlere (nemlig Van Zijll, Staals, Spoormaker, Hemera, Göttgens-Beek, Loven, Canton-Reiss, Welling og Nedam) fra ultimo august/primo september 19% rent faktisk forpligtede sig til ikke længere at foretage eksportsalg, og at dette skete efter tilskyndelse hertil fra Opel Nederland.
Contrary to what the applicants maintain, the Commission's allegations are not therefore based on internal working documents which do not represent company policy. As the Commission has rightly argued in its written submissions, they are based on the minutes of the management meeting of 26 September 1996, which constitutes a final document concerning measures taken by the most senior managers of Opel Nederland.
Da foranstaltningen er et resultat af en fælles viljeserklæring mellem Opel Nederland og de pågældende forhandlere, udgør denne en »aftale« i henhold til artikel 81, stk. 1, EF, som indgår i det mellem parterne bestående kontraktforhold.
Β — The second plea in law, alleging an error of fact and law vitiating the assessment that Opel Nederland implemented a policy of restricting supply contrary to Article 81 EC
Herefter bør det femte anbringende, som er påberåbt subsidiært, undersøges nærmere.
No order was ever refused on the ground that it would cause the dealer to exceed its SEG or any other quota.
Sagsøgerne har subsidiært anført, at den pålagte bøde på 43 mio. EUR står uden rimelig forbindelse med overtrædelsens grovhed og varighed.
Secondly, the applicants claim that the decision of 26 September 1996 was never communicated to the dealers so that they cannot be deemed to have agreed to the restrictive supply policy.
Under hensyn til overtrædelsens grovhed er det Kommissionens opfattelse, at et beløb på 40 mio. EUR er et passende udgangspunkt til fastsættelse af grundbeløbet.
The Court considers that it has not been established to the requisite legal standard that the restrictive supply measure was communicated to the dealers and still less that that measure entered into the field of the contractual relations between Opel Nederland and its dealers.
Retten finder, at dette beløb under de foreliggende omstændigheder, og såfremt det antages, at de tre påståede foranstaltninger er en realitet, er godtgjort og behørigt begrundet i den anfægtede beslutning, selv under hensyntagen til de fremsatte
In that respect, it should be recalled that the Commission is under a duty to produce sufficiently precise and coherent proof to justify the firm conviction that the alleged infringement has taken place.
forbehold vedrørende antallet af involverede forhandlere, den ulovlige karakter af brevene af 28. og 29. august og af 30. september 19% samt af revisionerne, det berørte markeds udstrækning og overtrædelsens konkrete indvirkning.
It follows that the second plea in law is well founded, without there being any need to examine the other arguments put forward in support of that plea.
Kommissionen har nemlig ligeledes vurderet overtrædelsens grovhed i forhold til antallet af påståede foranstaltninger.
The applicants do not dispute that export sales to final consumers were excluded from its bonus campaigns following the decision of 26 September 1996.
Under de foreliggende omstændigheder finder Retten, at grundbeløbet for så vidt angår overtrædelsens grovhed passende kan fastsættes til 33 mio. EUR.
However, they deny that that policy can be regarded as an agreement with its dealers to restrict exports which infringes Article 81 EC.
I det foreliggende tilfælde har Kommissionen under hensyntagen til den respektive varighed af de tre påståede foranstaltninger forhøjet beløbet på 40 mio. EUR med 7,5%, altså 3 mio. EUR, hvorefter bødens grundbeløb i alt udgør 43 mio. EUR.
Having regard both to the nature of the measure and the aims which it pursues, in the light of the economic context in which it was to be applied, the Court finds, in accordance with consistent case-law, that the measure constitutes an agreement with the object of restricting competition.
Under hensyntagen til bødenedsættelsen for så vidt angår overtrædelsens grovhed finder forhøjelsen på 7,5% herefter anvendelse på beløbet på 33 mio. EUR, altså en forhøjelse på i alt 2 475 000 EUR, hvorefter bøden i alt udgør 35 475 000 EUR.
According to consistent case-law, and as the Commission has pointed out in its written submissions, there is no need to take account of the concrete effects of an agreement when it has as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
D — The fourth plea in law, alleging an error in fact and in law vitiating the assessment that Opel Nederland implemented a direct ban on exports, contrary to Article 81 EC
»1) Kommissionens beslutning 2001/146/EF af 20. september 2000 om en procedure i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 81 (COMP/36.653 - Opel) annulleres, for så vidt som denne fastslår eksistensen af en leveringsbegrænsningsforanstaltning som er i strid med artikel 81, stk 1, EF.
The applicants observe, as a preliminary point, that they do not exclude the possibility that certain district managers of Opel Nederland may have misunderstood the scope of the decision of 26 September 1996 — which was designed merely to stop exports to unauthorised resellers — and that, in individual conversations with dealers, those district managers may have conveyed the erroneous impression that Opel Nederland sought to restrict all exports without distinction, or failed to react to dealer 'commitments' which were unduly broad in scope.
Størrelsen af den bøde, som pålægges sagsøgerne ved den anfægtede beslutnings artikel 3, nedsættes tü 35 475 000 EUR
Since it results from a meeting of minds between Opel Nederland and the dealers in question, the measure constitutes an 'agreement' within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC, which forms part of the existing contractual relations between the parties.
I øvrigt frifindes Kommissionen.
It is therefore necessary to examine the fifth plea in law, raised in the alternative.
Sagsøgerne bærer fire femtedele af deres egne omkostninger og betaler fire femtedele af Kommissionens omkostninger; Kommissionen bærer en femtedel af sine egne omkostninger og betaler en femtedel af sagsøgernes omkostninger.*
Having regard to the gravity of the infringement, the Commission considers that EUR 40 million constitutes an appropriate basis for determining the basic amount.
Sag T-302/01 Gerhard Birkhoff / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Tjenestemandsvedtægten
In the circumstances of this case, the Court considers it appropriate to fix the basic amount, in relation to the gravity of the infringement, at EUR 33 million.
»Tjenestemænd — artikel 2, stk 5, i bilag VII til vedtægten - ophævehe af børnetilskud f or et myndigt barn, der lider af en alvorlig sygdom eller vedvarende svagelighed — berettiget forventning* (Anden Afdeling)
In this case, taking into account the respective duration of the three measures alleged, the Commission has made an increase of 7.5% of the amount of EUR 40 million, namely EUR 3 million, taking the basic amount of the fine to EUR 43 million.
Sag T-392/02 Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV / Rådet for Den Europæiske Union Landbrug
Taking into account the reduction of the fine in relation to the gravity of the infringement, the increase of 7.5% therefore applies to the amount of EUR 33 million, namely EUR 2 475 000, taking the amount of the fine to EUR 35 475 000.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
The application is dismissed as to the remainder.
Les Éditions Albert René / Kontoret for Harmonisering i det Indre Marked (Varemærker og Design) (KHIM) Intellektuel ejendomsret
Case T-302/01 Gerhard Birkhoff ν Commission of the European Communities Staff Regulations of Officials
»EF-varemærker — indsigehessag — det ældre EF-varemærke ASTERDC — ansøgning om EF-figurmærke indeholdende ordet starbt — relative registreringshindringer — artikel 8, stk 1, litra b), og artikel 5 i forordning (EF) nr. 40/94* (Fjerde Afdeling)
(Officials —Article 2(5)ofAnnex VII to the Staff Regulations — Cancellation of an allowance for dependent child who has reached majority — Legitimate expectations) (Second Chamber)
De varer og tjenesteydelser, som registreringsansøgningen vedrørte, henhører under klasse 9 og 38 i Nicearrangementet. arrangementet.
Case T-392/02 Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV ν Council of the European Union Agriculture