ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 —

Sherwin-Williams Sweden v OHIM — Akzo Nobel Coatings International (ARTI)

(Case T‑12/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community trade mark ARTI — Earlier Benelux word mark ARTITUDE and international registration of the earlier Benelux trade mark ARTITUDE — Refusal to register — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Identical or highly similar goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Legality of the decision of a Board of Appeal adjudicating in opposition proceedings — Challenge by raising new matters of law — Conditions under which permissible (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see paras 30-34)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 46, 47, 82)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark ARTI and word mark ARTITUDE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 54, 55, 81, 83, 84)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 56, 57, 69)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2012 (Case R 2085/2011‑1), concerning opposition proceedings between Akzo Nobel Coatings International B V and Sherwin-Williams Sweden Group AB.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Legal basis of an action — Choice for the applicant and not the EU judicature — Admissibility assessed in relation to the applicant’s choice (see paras 19-23)

2. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — No jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 288 TFEU) (see paras 26-33)

3. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Reclassification of the action — Conditions — Applicant not having expressly requested reclassification — Action not based on any plea claiming infringement of the rules governing the contractual relationship — Exclusion of reclassification (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU) (see paras 34-37)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the EACEA’s pre-information letter of 5 April 2013 informing the applicant that it had to reimburse EUR 181 686.11 following the audit of the ‘Virtual simulator for language training for tourism professionals (e-client)’.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the Federación Española de Hostelería to pay the costs.
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 registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21-26, 48)
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

11 December 2014

Carla Faita

v

European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Lack of assistance and breach of the duty of care — Error of law — Rights of the defence’

Appeal:

against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Faita v EESC (F‑92/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:130), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Ms Carla Faita is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC).

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Rejection decision — No obligation for the administration to substitute grounds for the original decision

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90)

Where, after considering a complaint by an official, the competent appointing authority considers that the grounds for the original decision which is the subject of that complaint are both well founded and sufficient to respond to the allegations made in the complaint, there is no reason for it to depart from that statement of reasons by substituting another. In those circumstances it may, therefore, reject the complaint, reproducing, in the rejection decision, the same grounds as those given in the original decision, without being criticised for infringing the obligation to provide a statement of reasons or the principle of sound administration.

(see para. 32)

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

11 December 2014

Carla Faita

v

European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Lack of assistance and breach of the duty of care — Error of law — Rights of the defence’

Appeal:

against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Faita v EESC (F‑92/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:130), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Ms Carla Faita is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC).

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Rejection decision — No obligation for the administration to substitute grounds for the original decision

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90)

Where, after considering a complaint by an official, the competent appointing authority considers that the grounds for the original decision which is the subject of that complaint are both well founded and sufficient to respond to the allegations made in the complaint, there is no reason for it to depart from that statement of reasons by substituting another. In those circumstances it may, therefore, reject the complaint, reproducing, in the rejection decision, the same grounds as those given in the original decision, without being criticised for infringing the obligation to provide a statement of reasons or the principle of sound administration.

(see para. 32)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 January 2015 — Now Wireless v OHIM — Starbucks (HK) (now)

(Case T‑278/13)

‛Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community figurative mark now — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) and Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), 51 and 57(2) and (3)) (see paras 15, 16, 19)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Partial use — Effect — Concept of ‘part of goods or services’ concerned by registration (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 57(2) and (3)) (see paras 24, 25, 27)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Use by a third party with the consent of the trade mark proprietor — Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(2)) (see paras 34, 36)

4. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Use by a third party with the consent of the trade mark proprietor — Express or implied consent (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(2)) (see paras 35, 38)

5. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment — Territorial extent of the use (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), 51 and 57(2) and (3)) (see paras 44-47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2013 (Case R 234/2012-2), concerning revocation proceedings between Now Wireless Ltd and Starbucks (HK) Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 March 2015 — Naazneen Investments v OHIM — Energy Brands (SMART WATER)

(Case T‑250/13)

‛Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark SMART WATER — Genuine use — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 14-17)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51(1)(a)) (see paras 25-28)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Determination of a quantitative threshold of minimum use (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51(1)(a)) (see para. 49)

4. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Meaning of ‘just grounds’ for non-use — Independent and uniform interpretation — Obstacles bearing a direct relation to the trade mark rendering its use unreasonable or impossible and independent of the volition of the trade mark proprietor (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 63, 66, 71-73)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 February 2013 (Case R 1101/2011‑2), relating to revocation proceedings between Energy Brands, Inc. and Naazneen Investments Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
6.

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Procedure concerning grounds for refusal to register — Challenge concerning the comparison of goods or services not raised before the Board of Appeal — No modification of the factual or legal framework of the dispute brought before the Board of Appeal (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 52, 53, 55)
Case T‑489/13

(publication by extracts)

La Rioja Alta, SA

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark VIÑA ALBERDI — Earlier national figurative mark VILLA ALBERTI — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No coexistence of trade marks — Likelihood of confusion’

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber), 30 June 2015

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 — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Effect

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

Likelihood of confusion is the risk that the public might believe that goods or services come from the same undertaking, or from economically-linked undertakings. It must be assessed on an overall basis, according to the relevant public’s perception of the signs and goods or services concerned, and taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case, in particular the interdependence between the similarity of the signs and that of the goods or services covered. Amongst those relevant factors, the coexistence of two marks on a market may be taken into account since it is accepted that, together with other elements, it may contribute to diminishing the likelihood of confusion between those marks on the part of the relevant public.

Although it is undoubtedly for the proprietor of the contested trade mark to demonstrate during the proceedings before OHIM concerning relative grounds for refusal that such coexistence was based upon the absence of any likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public between the mark upon which the proprietor relies and the earlier mark on which the application for annulment is based, it is open to such a proprietor to advance a body of evidence to that effect. In that regard, evidence demonstrating that the relevant public recognised each of the trade marks at issue before the time of filing the application for registration of the contested mark is particularly relevant. In addition, since it has already been held that the coexistence of two trade marks must be sufficiently long to be capable of influencing the perception of the relevant consumers, the duration of the coexistence also constitutes an essential factor.

Moreover, any argument based on coexistence implies a priori, first, that the earlier trade marks are identical to the trade marks at issue, and, second, genuine use of the trade mark on which the applicant relies in the relevant territory. Furthermore, in so far as only peaceful coexistence between the trade marks at issue can be taken into account, any dispute between the proprietors of the earlier trade marks prevents a finding of coexistence.

(see paras 68, 70, 80-82)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 —

Formula One Licensing v OHIM — Idea Marketing (F1H2O)

(Case T‑55/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark F1H2O — Community, international, Benelux and national word and figurative marks with the element ‘F1’ — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier trade marks — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009’

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 registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 29, 34, 48)

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 — Word mark F1H20 — Word and figurative marks F1 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 33, 49-51, 55-57)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Similarity of the marks concerned — Whether conceptual differences may neutralise visual or aural similarities — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 44)

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 — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 63)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2012 (Case R 1247/2011‑4), concerning opposition proceedings between Formula One Licensing BV and Idea Marketing SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2015 — Levi Strauss v OHIM — L&O Hunting Group (101)

(Case T‑604/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark 101 — Earlier Community word mark 501 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

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 registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20-23)

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 — Word marks 101 and 501 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 28, 40, 44, 47, 48, 50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2013 (Case R 1538/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Levi Strauss & Co. and L&O Hunting Group GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 6 September 2013 (Case R 1538/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Levi Strauss & Co. and L&O Hunting Group GmbH;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c))

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept

(Council Regulation No 207/2009 Art. 7(1)(c))

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word mark Tafel

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c))

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b))

Summary

1. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 15)

2. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 16-19)

3. From the point of view of the German-speaking public, the word mark ‘Tafel’ is not descriptive, for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, of services of ‘gathering, collection, transportation and distribution of essential goods, including foodstuffs, for persons in need’ falling within Class 39 of the Nice arrangement, and of ‘personal and social services rendered by others to meet individual needs’ within Class 45 of the said arrangement.

The German term ‘Tafel’ in the sense of ‘table’ does not have, in relation to the services in question, a direct and specific relationship enabling the public concerned immediately to perceive, without further thought, a description of those services. Even if those services may in some cases they may be provided at a table — inter alia services for providing food and drink — that is not necessarily the case. That assessment is without prejudice to any ruling that may be given concerning other meanings of the term ‘Tafel’ not analysed by the Board of Appeal.

(see paras 21, 31, 34, 35, 37)

4. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 44)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see paras 16, 17)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Conditions — Assessment by reference to the criteria determined by the national law governing the sign relied on (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(4), and 41(1)(c)) (see paras 25, 26)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Opposition based on the protected geographical indication — Applicable provisions — Combined application of Article 13 of Regulation No 510/2006 and of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulations No 510/2006, Art. 13, and No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 39-41, 52)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 May 2013 (Case R 757/2012-5) relating to opposition proceedings between the Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia and Nadine Hélène Jeanne Hautrive.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 May 2013 (Case R 757/2012-5);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia;

3. Orders Ms Nadine Hélène Jeanne Hautrive to bear her own costs.