ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 January 2011 – BSH v OHIM (executive edition)

(Case T-310/08)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark executive edition – Absolute grounds for refusal – Absence of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 26, 33-34)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 June 2008 (Case R 845/2007‑1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign executive edition as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark executive edition for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11 – Application No 4908182 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2010 – Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Shape of a chocolate rabbit)

(Case T-395/08)

Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark – Shape of a chocolate rabbit – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – No distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 25, 46-47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 July 2008 (Case R 419/2008-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate rabbit.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional mark in the form of a chocolate rabbit for goods in Class 30 – Application No 3664372 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 7 June 2011 – Psytech International v OHIM – Institute for Personality & Ability Testing (16PF)

(Case T-507/08)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark 16PF – Absolute grounds for refusal – Distinctive character – No descriptive character – No signs which have become customary – No bad faith – Article 7(1)(b) to (d) and Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) to (d) and Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(b) to (d) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 32-35, 59-65, 78-79)

2. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Applicant in bad faith at the time of lodging the trade mark application (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 51(1)(b)) (see paras 89-93)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2008 (Case R 1012/2007-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Psytech International Ltd and the Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: Word mark 16PF for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42 – Community trade mark registration No 1892652 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, Inc. Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Psytech International Ltd Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for cancellation dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1.Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2011 – Arch Chemicals and Others v Commission

(Case T-120/08)

Action for annulment – Health policy – Marketing of biocidal products – Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility – Default procedure

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Possibility of being individually concerned by a general decision – Conditions – Commission regulation designed to establish the rules for applying the work programme for examining all existing active substances – Action brought by procducers of active substances – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 1451/2007) (see paras 34-38, 44-46, 49-50)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Article 3(2), Article 4, Article 7(3), the second subparagraph of Article 14(2), Article 15(3), Article 17 of and Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 2007, L 325, p. 3).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders Arch Chemicals, Inc., Arch Timber Protection Ltd, Rhodia UK Ltd, Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc and Troy Chemical Co. BV to bear their own costs;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 12 July 2011 – Aldi Einkauf v OHIM – Illinois Tools Works (TOP CRAFT)

(Case T-374/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark TOP CRAFT – Earlier national figurative marks Krafft – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Genuine use of the earlier marks – Article 43(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009) and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

1. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Interpretation having regard to the rationale of Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see para. 24)

2. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 25-27)

3. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Application of the criteria to the case in question (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see para. 28)

4. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Complex mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44, 51, 56, 64)

5. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 47-48, 67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2008 (Case R 952/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Illinois Tools Works, Inc. and Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 June 2008 (Case R 952/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Illinois Tools Works, Inc. and Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG);
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2011 – Konsum Nord v Commission

(Case T-244/08)

State aid – Land sale price – Decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Private investor test – Determination of market price

1. State aid – Concept – Legal nature – Interpretation on the basis of objective factors – Judicial review – Scope (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 37-38)

2. State aid – Concept – Assessment of all factors relevant to the transaction at issue and its context – Sale of land part of a series of linked operations designed to allow implementation of a town planning scheme (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 56-58)

3. State aid – Concept – Assessment according to the criterion of the private investor – Assessment of all factors relevant to the transaction at issue and its context – Sale of land by a public authority to a private person despite the existence of an offer at a higher price – Comparability between the two offers – Criteria for assessment (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 61-63, 65, 72, 76)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/366/EC of 30 January 2008 on State aid C 35/06 (ex NN 37/06) implemented by Sweden for Konsum Jämtland Ekonomisk Förening (OJ 2008 L 126, p. 3).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2008/366/EC of 30 January 2008 on State aid C 35/06 (ex NN 37/06) implemented by Sweden for Konsum Jämtland Ekonomisk Förening;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2012 — Coverpla v OHIM – Heinz‑Glas (Flacon)

(Case T-450/08)

Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a bottle — Prior design — Ground for invalidity — Disclosure of prior design — Absence of novelty — Articles 5 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002

1. Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Disclosure by the designer or his successor in title — Proof of the disclosure (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 5(1)(b), and 7(1)) (see paras 20-23)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 July 2008 (Case R 1411/2007-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Heinz-Glas GmbH and Coverpla in respect of a Community design.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30-31, 54-55

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 May 2009 (Case R 1724/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between MeDiTA Medizinische Kurierdienst- und Handelsgesellschaft mbH and PVS – Privatärztliche Verrechnungsstelle Rhein-Ruhr GmbH.

Information relating to the case

>lt>25

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Privatärztliche Verrechnungsstelle Rhein-Ruhr GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 51

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2008 (Cases R 483/2008-4 and R 705/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH and Stabilator sp. z o.o.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 27-30

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2009 (Case R 1511/2008-1) concerning an application for registration of a green convex square as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>11

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Fédération internationale des logis to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 28-37

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 (Case R-372/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of a colour sign, consisting in the combination of the colours grey and red, as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deutsche Bahn AG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 51, 55

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2009 (Case R 1367/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Kadabell GmbH & Co. KG and Oyster Cosmetics SpA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Oyster Cosmetics SpA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Community judicature having no jurisdiction where the parties have not expressed the intention to confer jurisdiction upon it over a contractual dispute – Contracts concluded between the Commission and an association – Action by the Commission against the President of that association – President not bound by the contracts – Rejection – Joint and several liability of the President under the relevant national law – No effect (Arts 238 EC and 240 EC) (see paras 39-46)

2. Budget of the European Communities – Community financial assistance – Obligation on the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the assistance – Financing covering only expenses actually incurred – Proof of the reality of the expenses declared in the prescribed forms and time-limits – None – Ineligible expenses (Art. 274 EC) (see paras 61-67)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought under Article 238 EC on the basis of an arbitration clause seeking an order that Arci Nuova associazione comitato di Cagliari and Alberto Gessa, in a personal capacity and jointly and severally, should repay an advance paid by the Commission under the agreement 2003‑1550/001‑001, together with late payment interest.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action so far as brought against Mr Alberto Gessa;

2. Orders Arci Nuova associazione comitato di Cagliari to repay to the European Commission the principal sum of EUR 15 675, together with late payment interest at the rate of 7.32% from 20 May 2007 until full payment of the debt;

3. Orders Arci Nuova associazione comitato di Cagliari to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which have become customary in everyday language or commerce – Commonplace character – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(d)) (see paras 26-27)

2. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Exception – Acquisition of distinctive character through use (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(d) and 52(2)) (see paras 31, 37-40, 52)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 April 2009 (Case R 595/2008-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Performing Science LLC and Longevity Health Products Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Longevity Health Products Inc. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22-23, 60

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 August 2009 (Case R 1538/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Carmen March Juan and TTNB.

Information relating to the case

>lt>9

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders TTNB to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 33-34, 57, 66-67

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 (Case R 500/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 September 2009 (Case R 500/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 95

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 May 2009 (Case R 402/2008-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH and Omnicare, Inc.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Omnicare, Inc. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 31-32

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1097/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Hendrik Blok and Honda Motor Co. Ltd.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Honda Motor Co. Ltd to pay the costs.
Case T-237/09

Région wallonne

v

European Commission

‛(Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — National emission allowance allocation plan for Belgium in respect of the period from 2008 to 2012 — Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 — Subsequent correction — New entrant — Decision instructing the Central Administrator of the Community independent transaction log to enter a correction into the national allocation plan table)’

Summary of the Judgment

Only the operative part of a decision is capable of producing legal effects and, consequently, of adversely affecting a person’s legal interests, regardless of the grounds on which the decision is based. By contrast, the assessments made in the recitals of a decision are not in themselves capable of forming the subject of an action for annulment and can be subject to review by the European Union judicature only to the extent that, as grounds for an act adversely affecting a person’s interests, they constitute the necessary basis for the operative part of that act. However, even though the operative part of a decision does not expressly reject a request made by the addressee, it may nevertheless be apparent from the decision, as read in the light of its fundamental grounds, that the institution which drew it up expressly adopted a position on that request and rejected it. It must therefore be held in such a case that the decision entails binding legal effects adversely affecting the addressee in that respect. (see paras 44-46)

Article 44(2) of Regulation No 2216/2004 for a standardised and secured system of registries pursuant to Directive 2003/87 and Decision No 280/2004 lays down two criteria which must both be met in order for a correction to be capable of being made to a national allocation plan (NAP) table without it being necessary to follow the procedure for notifying an amended NAP pursuant to Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community. First, the correction must be based upon the NAP, as notified to the Commission and not rejected by it, and second, it must result from ‘improvements in data’. Also, when those two cumulative criteria are met, the Commission is required, under the final words of the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 44(2) of Regulation No 2216/2004, to instruct the Central Administrator of the Community independent transaction log to enter the correction in question into the NAP table. (see para. 55)