ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 8 July 2009 – Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel v OHIM – Schwarzbräu (ALASKA)

(Case T-225/08)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community figurative mark ALASKA – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 22, 37, 39)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2008 (Case R 877/2004‑4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH and Schwarzbräu GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ALASKA for goods in Class 32 – Community trade mark No 505552 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Schwarzbräu GmbH Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for the declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 5 May 2009 – ars Parfum Creation & Consulting v OHIM (Shape of a spray bottle)

(Case T-104/08)

(Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark – Shape of a spray bottle – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Obligation to state reasons – Articles 7(1)(b), 73 and 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 )





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 40, 42, 46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 November 2007 (Case R 1656/2006-1), relating to the registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a spray bottle.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: ars Parfum Creation & Consulting GmbH Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a perfume bottle for goods in Class 3 – Application No 4995361 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ars Parfum Creation & Consulting GmbH to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 13 October 2009 – Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM – Redrock Construction (REDROCK)

(Case T-146/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark REDROCK – Earlier national word mark Rock – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now, Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 41-47, 86-89)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 February 2008 (Case R 506/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG and Redrock Construction s.r.o.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Redrock Construction s.r.o. Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark REDROCK for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 17, 19, 36 and 37 – Application No 3866365 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll Gmbh & Co. OHG Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark Rock for goods and services in Classes 1, 6 to 8, 17, 19, 37 and 42 (No 30229274), the opposition being directed at registration in all classes except Class 36 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed and application refused in part Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled and opposition dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Redrock Construction s.r.o.;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 – Gres La Sagra v OHIM – Ceramicalcora (VENATTO MARBLE STONE)

(Case T-130/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark VENATTO MARBLE STONE – Earlier national figurative marks VENETO CERÁMICAS – 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)

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 17, 51-53)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2008 (Case R 1609/2006-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ceramicalcora, SA and Gres La Sagra, SL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Gres La Sagra, SL Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark VENATTO MARBLE STONE for goods and services in Classes 19, 21, 39 and 40 – Application No 3109006 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ceramicalcora, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade marks including the sign VENETO CÉRAMICAS Nos 2115543, 2056688, 2056689 and 2056699 for goods and services in Classes 27, 19, 21 and 39 respectively Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part. The Opposition Division held that there was a likelihood of confusion in the relevant territory for the goods and services at issue in Classes 19, 21 and 40, but that there was no such likelihood of confusion in relation to those services at issue in Class 39 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 December 2009 – Media-Saturn v OHIM (BEST BUY)

(Case T-476/08)

Community trade mark – Application for figurative Community trade mark BEST BUY – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack 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 22, 26-29, 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 591/2008‑4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BEST BUY as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Media-Saturn-Holding GmbH Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark BEST BUY for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 5, 6 to 12, 14 to 17, 20 to 22, 27, 28, 35, 37, 38 and 40 to 42 – Application No 5189550 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 Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 17 November 2009 – Apollo Group v OHIM (THINKING AHEAD)

(Case T-473/08)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark THINKING AHEAD – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack 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 29, 37)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2008 (Case R 728/2008-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign THINKING AHEAD as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Apollo Group, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark THINKING AHEAD for goods in Classes 9, 16 and 41 Decision of the Examiner: Application partially rejected Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 20 April 2010 – Rodd & Gunn Australia v OHIM (Representation of a dog)

(Case T-187/08)

Community trade mark – Figurative Community trade mark representing a dog – Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration – Request for renewal of the mark – Application for restitutio in integrum – Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Restitutio in integrum (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 78(1)) (see para. 29)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2008 (Case R 1245/2007-4) relating to an application for restitutio in integrum .

Information relating to the case

Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark consisting of a representation of a dog for goods in Classes 16, 18, and 25 – Community trade mark No 339218 Decision of the Trade Marks and Register Department: Application for restitutio in integrum dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 March 2010 – 2nine v OHIM – Pacific Sunwear of California (nollie)

(Case T-363/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark nollie – Earlier national and international word marks NOLI – Relative ground for refusal – No similarity between the goods – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

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 24, 43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2008 (Case R 1590/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between 2nine Ltd and Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark nollie for goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 11, 14, 18, 20, 25 and 26 – application No 4602017 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: 2nine Ltd Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 839740 of the word mark NOLI for goods in Classes 3, 18, 24 and 25; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2361525 of the word mark NOLI for goods in Classes 3, 18, 24 and 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld; trade mark application refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision partially annulled





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 May 2010 – Arbeitsgemeinschaft Golden Toast v OHIM (Golden Toast)

(Case T-163/08)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark Golden Toast – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009)

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 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 24, 33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2008 (Case R 761/2007‑1) relating to an application to register the word sign Golden Toast as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Golden Toast eV Community trade mark sought: Word mark Golden Toast for goods and services in Classes 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 21, 24, 25, 28 to 32, 39 and 41 to 44 – Application No 4811171 Decision of the examiner: Application refused in part, in respect of the goods in Classes 11 and 30 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 June 2010 – Matratzen Concord v OHIM – Barranco Schnitzler and Barranco Rodriguez (MATRATZEN CONCORD)

(Case T-351/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark MATRATZEN CONCORD – Earlier national word mark MATRATZEN – Relative ground for refusal – Evidence of use of the earlier mark – Duty to state reasons – Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – Article 73, first sentence, of Regulation No 40/94 – Scope identical with that of Article 253 EC (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73, first sentence) (see paras 17-18, 23)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 May 2008 (Case R 1034/2007‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between (i) Pablo Barranco Schnitzler and Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and (ii) Matratzen Concord GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Matratzen Concord GmbH Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark MATRATZEN CONCORD for goods in Classes 10, 20 and 24 – Application No 3355369 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Pablo Barranco Schnitzler and Mariano Barranco Rodriguez Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark MATRATZEN for goods in Class 20 Decision of the Opposition Division: Refusal of the application for a Community trade mark Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





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 30 May 2008 (Case R 1034/2007‑2);
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 – Abbott Laboratories v OHIM – aRigen (Sorvir)

(Case T-149/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark Sorvir – Earlier Community word mark NORVIR – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 23, 38-41)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 February 2008 (Case R 809/2007‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between Abbott Laboratories and aRigen, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: aRigen, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark Sorvir for goods in Class 5 – Application No 004455507 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Abbott Laboratories Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark NORVIR for goods in Class 5 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed in its entirety Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





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 6 February 2008 (Case R 809/2007-2);
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 8 September 2010 – Kido v OHIM – Amberes (SCORPIONEXO)

(Case T-152/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark SCORPIONEXO – Earlier national figurative mark ESCORPION – 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)

1. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Application submitted expressly and on time by the applicant – Possibility of submitting the application for the first time before the General Court – Not included (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 18-22)

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39-40, 81-83)

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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2008 (Case R 287/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Amberes, SA and Kido Industrial Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Kido Industrial Ltd Community trade mark sought: Word mark SCORPIONEXO for goods in Classes 9 and 28 Application No – 3886249 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Amberes, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative marks (No 339142, No 499599, No 499600 and No 339140) and international figurative marks (No 206346 and No 206347) composed of the design of a scorpion and the word ESCORPION, for goods in Classes 6, 8, 12, 16, 20, 21 and 28; and in Classes 22, 24 to 26 respectively. Spanish word mark ESCORPION (No 555764) for goods in Class 25. Community word mark ESCORPION (No 778217) for goods in Classes 22, 24 to 26. Decision of the Opposition Division: The Opposition Division, founding its decision solely on the earlier Spanish figurative mark No 339142 allowed the opposition in respect of goods in Classes 9 and 28, and refused entirely the application for registration in respect of those goods. 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 (Representation of a small bell with a red ribbon)

(Case T-346/08)

Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark – Representation of a small bell with a red ribbon – 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)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Three-dimensional mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 36, 40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 June 2008 (Case R 943/2007-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the representation of a small bell with a red ribbon.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional mark, representing a small bell with a red ribbon, for goods in Class 30 – Application No 4770831 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 (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2010 – Spain v Commission

(Case T-113/08)

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Aid for the production of olive oil – Aid for arable crop areas

1. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Definitive refusal to accept responsibility for certain expenses – Need for a prior inter partes procedure (see paras 61, 132)

2. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Communication to Member States of the results of investigations by control services – Substantive conditions (Council Regulation No 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c); Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8(1), first para.) (see paras 62-69)

3. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Challenge by the Member State concerned – Burden of proof – Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (see paras 91-92, 96-97)

4. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Oils and fats – Olive oil (Council Regulations Nos 154/75, 2261/84, Art. 14(3), and 1638/98, Art. 2(1) to (3); Commission Regulation No 2366/98, Art. 8(b)) (see paras 98-100, 103-106)

5. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Assessment of losses incurred by the Fund – Challenge by the Member State concerned – Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 729/70) (see paras 108-109)

6. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Limitation of the refusal of financing – Twenty-four month period – Point from which time starts to run – Communication by the Commission of the results of verifications (Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 7(4)) (see paras 118-123, 138)

7. Agriculture – EAGGF – Grant of aids and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an efficient system of administrative controls and spot checks – Unreliable controls – Disallowance by the Fund (Commission Regulation No 2419/2001, Art. 15) (see para. 152)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/68/EC of 20 December 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2008 L 18, p. 12), in so far as it relates to certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the olive oil and arable crop sectors.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;