ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2012 —

Seven Towns v OHIM (Representation of seven squares of different colours)



(Case T-293/10)

Community trade mark — Application for Community mark representing seven squares of different colours — Sign of which a Community trade mark may consist — Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

1. Community trade mark — Registration procedure — Publication of the application — Measure not guaranteeing registration of the trade mark (Council Regulation 207/2009, Arts 37 and 39(2)) (see paras 33, 35, 36)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Decision on the appeal — Exercise by the Board of Appeal of the powers of the examiner — Obligation to respect the rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 37(3), 64(1), and 75) (see paras 42, 43)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Signs capable of constituting a mark — Colours or combinations of colours — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 4) (see para. 50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2010 (Case R 1475/2009-1), concerning an application for registration of a sign representing seven squares of different colours as a Community mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Panrico (BIMBO DOUGHNUTS)

(Case T-569/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS — Earlier national word mark DOGHNUTS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Application for alteration — Admissibility

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 — Word marks BIMBO DOUGHNUTS and DOGHNUTS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 53, 97-100)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50-52, 55, 69, 90, 96)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 56, 77, 78)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2010 (Case R 838/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Panrico SA and Bimbo SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bimbo SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by OHIM;
72

Moreover, it is true that Article 26/A(5) of the Mining Act leaves the Hungarian authorities a margin of discretion, by providing that the rate of the extension fee, which determines, where applicable, that of the increased mining fee, is not to exceed 1.2 times the rate applicable on the date of the extension application. However, such a margin of assessment cannot automatically be regarded as favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods over others and, thus, confer a selective nature on the extension agreements concluded. Such a margin of assessment may be justified by various factors, such as the number of fields extended and their estimated importance in relation to the fields already in production. Specifically, if, as Hungary asserted during the administrative procedure (see paragraph 57 above), the increase of the fee rate applicable on the date of the extension application is aimed at offsetting the loss of fees concerning fields that have not been put into production within five years of issuance of authorisation, it is not illogical that the rate of the extension fee and, where applicable, the rate of the increased mining fee, which apply to fields where the date on which production starts is delayed and to fields already put into production respectively, are higher where the number of fields extended is significant in relation to the number of fields already in production and that they are lower where, as in the present case, the number of fields extended accounts for a small proportion of fields in production. It follows from this that the margin of assessment conferred by Article 26/A(5) of the Mining Act is such as to enable the administration to preserve equal treatment between operators according to whether they are in comparable or different situations for the purposes of the case-law cited in paragraph 54 above, by adjusting its proposed fees to the characteristics of each extension application submitted, and that it appears to be the expression of a latitude limited by objective criteria which are not unrelated to the system of fees established by the legislation in question. More broadly, it must be observed that the margin of assessment at issue here can be distinguished, by its nature, from cases where the exercise of such a margin is connected with the grant of an advantage in favour of an economic operator. In the present case, the Hungarian authorities margin of assessment allows the fixing of an additional charge on economic operators in such a manner as to take account of the imperatives arising from the principle of equal treatment.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Regulation imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire and decision renewing those measures – Minimum requirements (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 560/2005, as amended by Regulation No 330/2011, Annex IA; Council Decision 2010/656, as amended by Decision 2011/221, Annex II) (see paras 20-26, 29-30, 32)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Regulation imposing partial annulment of a regulation imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire and decision renewing those measures – Regulation of insufficient reasoning during the contentious procedure – Conditions – Exceptional circumstances (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 560/2005, as amended by Regulation No 330/2011, Annex IA; Council Decision 2010/656, as amended by Decision 2011/221, Annex II) (see paras 34-35)

3. Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Partial annulment of a regulation imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire and decision renewing those measures – Decision to annul the regulation taking effect as from the expiry of the time-limit for appeal or dismissal of the latter – Application of that time-limit to the taking of effect of the annulment of the decision (Arts 264, second para., TFEU and 280 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 56, first para., and 60, second para., Council Regulation No 560/2005, as amended by Regulation No 330/2011; Council Decision 2010/656, as amended by Decision 2011/221) (see paras 38-39)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20), and, second, Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and, second, Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, in so far as they concern Mr Mathieu Kadio Morokro;

2. Maintains the effects of Decision 2011/221 as far as concerns Mr Kadio Morokro until the annulment of Regulation No 330/2011 takes effect;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Mr Kadio Morokro.
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark

—

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

—

Absolute grounds for refusal

—

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20, 29, 31-36

)
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark

—

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

—

Absolute grounds for refusal

—

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20, 35, 49, 58, 63

)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

—

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

—

Absolute grounds for refusal

—

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20-26, 30, 31, 39, 40

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 May 2011 (Case R 215/2011‑2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign UniversalPHOLED as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Universal Display Corp. to pay the costs.
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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 38)
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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17-20, 22, 53, 74)

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 babilu and BABIDU (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23-25, 52, 59, 66, 73, 78)

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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 45)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2010 (Case R 773/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Punt-Nou, SL and Present Service Ullrich GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Present-Service Ullrich GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2012 — Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (CLORALEX)

(Case T-135/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CLORALEX — Earlier national word marks CLOROX — 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 22, 44)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 19)

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 — Word marks CLORALEX and CLOROX (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 43, 46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2010 (Case R 521/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between The Clorox Company and Industrias Alen SA de CV.

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 16 December 2010 (Case R 521/2009-4);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by The Clorox Company;
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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18)

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 FAIRWILD and WILD (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 20, 22, 44, 46)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 31, 34)

4. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Exclusion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 38)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2011 (Case R 1014/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG and FairWild Foundation.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders FairWild Foundation to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to the proceedings — Persons whose claims not upheld by a decision — Decision remitting the case to the lower instance body for reexamination (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(4)) (see paras 19, 21, 22)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Exception — Acquisition of distinctiveness through use — Mark devoid of distinctive character in part of the Union — Acquisition of distinctive character in that same part (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(3)) (see paras 27, 28)

3. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeals before the Community judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 36)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 51)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 52, 53)

6. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Word mark TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 69, 91)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2011 (Case R 1293/2010-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Maharishi Foundation Ltd to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Own resources of the European Union — Regulation on protection of the financial interests of the Union — Prosecution of irregularities — Limitation period — Decision to reduce financial assistance initially granted under the European Social Fund — Competent national authority entrusted with recovery of sums unduly paid — Inapplicability of the limitation period against the Commission (Council Regulation No 2988/95, Art. 3(1)) (see paras 44-50, 52, 54)

2. EU law — Principles — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Administrative procedure — Criteria for assessment (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1)) (see paras 58-60)

3. Social policy — European Social Fund — Financial assistance for vocational training — Accuracy of facts and accounts in final payment claims to be certified by the Member State — Scope and limits — Decision to reduce assistance initially granted — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Rights of defence — No infringement (Council Regulation No 2950/83, Arts 6(1), and 7(1); Council Decision 83/516, Art. 2(2); Commission Decision 83/673, Art. 7) (see paras 61, 65, 70, 73, 75, 76)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision, on the proposition of a Member State, reducing assistance for the European Social Fund for vocational training — No infringement of the duty to state reasons (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 81-84, 92)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 27 October 2010 setting the final amount of the expenditure eligible for assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF), granted to the applicant for training operations by Commission Decision C(89) 570 of 22 March 1989 for the funding of training operations (file 89 0979 P3).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23-25)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 36, 49-52)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 27)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark METROINVEST and figurative mark METRO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 35, 41, 42, 46, 56-59)

5. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Boards of Appeal — Classification as administration of the Office — Right of the parties to a fair ‘process’ — None (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 61 to 64) (see para. 62)

6. 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 63, 64)

7. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of non-discrimination — Irrelevant (see para. 74)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2011 (Case R 954/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL, to pay the costs.