ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 June 2015 —

Gambling Commission v OHIM — Mediatek Italia and De Gregorio (Representation of a hand)

(Case T‑404/10 RENV)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark representing a hand — Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Existence of earlier copyright protected by national law — Burden of proof — Application by OHIM of national law’

1. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Use of the mark capable of being prohibited by virtue of another earlier right — Review by the competent bodies of OHIM and by the Court as to the national law applicable (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 27-30)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Cancellation proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties — Assessment by the Office of the materiality of the facts alleged and the probative value of the evidence adduced (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 31)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2010 (Case R 1028/2009‑1) relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Mediatek Italia Srl and Giuseppe De Gregorio and, on the other, the National Lottery Commission.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 June 2010 (Case R 1028/2009‑1);
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 December 2010 – DTL v OHIM – Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales (Solaria)

(Case T-188/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark Solaria – Earlier national figurative mark SOLARTIA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the services – Similarity of the signs – 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25-26, 45, 52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2010 (Case R 767/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales SL and DTL Corporación SL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: DTL Corporación, SL Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark containing the word element Solaria for services in Classes 37, 41 and 42 – Application No 5153325 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Gestiόn de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark containing the word element SOLARTIA No 2689747 for services in Classes 37 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 12 September 2017 —

Laufen Austria v Commission

(Case T‑411/10 RENV)

(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Fines — Fine imposed jointly and severally on a parent company and its subsidiary — Ceiling of 10% of turnover — Calculation of the ceiling on the basis solely of the turnover of the subsidiary for the period of the infringement prior to its acquisition by the parent company)

Judicial proceedings—Judgment of the Court of Justice binding the General Court—Conditions—Reference back following an appeal—Points of law finally determined by the Court of Justice in the context of the appeal—Res judicata—Scope

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 61; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 215)

(see para. 35)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, first, partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures) and, second, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Fixes at EUR 4788001 the portion of the fine imposed on Laufen Austria AG for which it is held individually liable in respect of the infringement committed during the period between 12 October 1994 and 28 October 1999;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011 – BVR v OHIM – Austria Leasing (Austria Leasing Gesellschaft m.b.H. Mitglied der Raiffeisen-Bankengruppe Österreich)

(Case T-197/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark Austria Leasing Gesellschaft m.b.H. Mitglied der Raiffeisen‑Bankengruppe Österreich – Earlier national figurative mark Raiffeisenbank – No likelihood of confusion – 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 22, 37, 42, 50, 63)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2010 (Case R 248/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between the Bundesverband der Deutschen Volksbanken und Raiffeisenbanken eV (BVR) and Austria Leasing GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Word mark EURO AUTOMATIC CASH for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 to 38 and 42 – Application No 4114864

Decision of the Board of Appeal:
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 October 2011 – Scatizza v OHIM – Jacinto (Horse Couture)

(Case T-238/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for registration of the Community figurative mark Horse Couture – Earlier national figurative mark HORSE – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 47-49)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2010 (Case R 723/2009‑2) relating to opposition proceedings between Manuel Jacinto, L da and Stephanie Scatizza.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 September 2011 – Nike International v OHIM – Deichmann (VICTORY RED)

(Case T-356/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for registration of the Community word mark VICTORY RED – Earlier international and national word marks Victory – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 25, 49, 52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 May 2010 (Case R 1309/2009‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Deichmann SE and Nike International Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 30 November 2011 – Hartmann v OHIM (Complete)

(Case T-123/10)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark Complete – Absolute grounds for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Descriptive character – Statement of reasons – Goods forming a homogenous group – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

1. 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 23, 25, 29, 36)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the products or services covered by the application for registration – Duty to state reasons for the refusal to register – Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)) (see paras 15-18)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 January 2010 (Case R 601/2009-4) concerning an application to register the word mark “Complete” as a Community trade mark.

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 20 January 2010 (Case R 601/2009-4);
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 – Dorma v OHIM – Puertas Doorsa (doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS)

(Case T-500/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark ‘doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS’ – Earlier national and international word and figurative marks ‘DORMA’ – Lodging of additional documents on the reputation of the earlier marks in the procedure before the Board of Appeal – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 64-66)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 August 2010 (Case R 542/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Dorma GmbH & Co. KG and Puertas Doorsa, SL.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 February 2012 — Goutier v OHIM — Euro Data (ARANTAX)



(Case T‑387/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ARANTAX — Earlier national word mark ANTAX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009

1. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Meaning (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 21‑26)

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 48, 78, 79)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2010 (Case R 126/2009‑4) concerning opposition proceedings between Euro Data GmbH & Co. KG, Datenverarbeitungsdienst and Mr Klaus Goutier.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2011 – Häfele v OHIM (Vorfront)

(Case T-531/10)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark Vorfront – Absolute ground for refusal – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) 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 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23-24, 26-27, 35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2010 (Case R 570/2010‑1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Vorfront as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 March 2012 — Armani v OHIM – Del Prete (AJ AMICI JUNIOR)

(Case T-420/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark AJ AMICI JUNIOR — Earlier national figurative mark AJ ARMANI JEANS — Earlier national word mark ARMANI JUNIOR — Relative ground for refusal — 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32-35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2010 (Case R 1360/2009-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Giorgio Armani SpA and Ms Annunziata Del Prete.

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 8 July 2010 (Case R 1360/2009-2);

2. Orders OHIM and Ms Annunziata Del Prete each to pay half of the costs incurred by Giorgio Armani SpA before the Board of Appeal;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2012 —

Panzeri v OHIM — Royal Trophy (Royal Veste e premia lo sport)



(Case T‑348/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community mark Royal Veste e premia lo sport — Earlier Community and international word marks veste lo sport — Earlier unregistered figurative mark panzeri veste lo sport — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (4) 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 39, 40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 988/2009‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Luigi Panzeri and Royal Trophy Srl.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 May 2010 (Case R 988/2009‑1);
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 —

Fruit of the Loom v OHIM — Blueshore Management (FRUIT)



(Case T-514/10)

Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark FRUIT — Non-use — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the European Union Courts — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2) and (3)) (see para. 12)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the European Union Courts — Jurisdiction of the General Court — No power to issue directions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 13)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form which differs through factors not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Subject-matter and scope of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)(a)) (see paras 28, 29, 38)

4. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form which differs through factors not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Word mark FRUIT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 39, 40, 54-68)

5. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Assessment of the genuineness of the use of the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)) (see para. 50 )

6. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1), and Art. 78(1)(f)); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(3)) (see paras 51, 52, 55)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 August 2010 (Case R 1686/2008-4) concerning revocation proceedings between Blueshore Management SA and Fruit of the Loom, Inc.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Fruit of the Loom, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM;
In order correctly to perform its obligation to give reasons for a measure imposing restrictive measures against persons, entities or organisations, the Council must mention the elements of fact and law on which the legal justification of those measures depends and the considerations which led it to take them. It follows that, in principle, the statement of reasons for such a measure must concern not only the legal conditions for applying restrictive measures, but also the specific and concrete reasons why the Council considers, in the exercise of its broad discretion, that the person concerned should be subject to such measures.

In particular, for measures adopted on the basis of Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and Article 16(2)(a) of Regulation No 961/2010 concerning the adoption of restrictive measures against Iran, the individual and specific reasons which the Council is required to give, pursuant to Article 24(3) of Decision 2010/413 and Article 36(3) of Regulation No 961/2010, are those relating to the inclusion of the persons, entities and organisations concerned on the lists at issue, that is to say to engagement in, direct association with or support for nuclear proliferation or, concerning entities owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of or under instructions from others, those reasons which caused it to consider that the condition of ownership, control or acting on behalf of or under instructions from others was met.

Thus, a measure freezing funds and economic resources adopted by the Council cannot be regarded as being sufficiently reasoned unless the Council mentions the elements of fact and law which have led it to consider, as the case may be, that the person, entity or organisation concerned has participated in, been directly associated with, or supported nuclear proliferation, or that that person, entity or organisation was owned or controlled by, or acted on behalf of or under the instructions of, a person, entity or organisation engaged in, being directly associated with, or supporting, nuclear proliferation.

(see paras 66-69)
In assessing the similarity of the goods and services at issue, it is settled case-law that all the relevant factors relating to those goods and services should be taken into account. Those factors include, inter alia, their nature, their intended purpose and their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary. Other factors may also be taken into account such as the distribution channels of the goods concerned.

Complementary goods and services are those between which there is a close connection, in the sense that one is indispensable or important for the use of the other in such a way that consumers may think that the responsibility for the production of those goods or provision of those services lies with the same undertaking. Thus, for the purposes of the assessment of whether the goods and services are complementary, the perception of that public of the importance of a product or service for the use of another product or service should, ultimately, be taken into account.

Therefore, the complementarity between the goods and services in the context of a likelihood of confusion does not rely on the existence of a connection between the goods and services at issue in the mind of the relevant public from the point of view of their nature, their method of use and their distribution channels but on the close connection between those goods and services, in the sense that one is indispensable or important for the use of the other in such a way that the public might think that the responsibility for the production of those goods or provision of those services lies with the same undertaking.

The fact that the method of use of a product or service is unrelated to the method of use of another product or service does not imply in each case that the use of one is not important or indispensable for the use of the other.

(see paras 21, 22, 36, 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 55-60 ) Subject of the case Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2010 (Case R 522/2010‑1) concerning opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC and fenaco Genossenschaft. Operative part Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2012 — Kraft Foods Global Brands v OHIM — fenaco (SUISSE PREMIUM)

(Case T-60/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark SUISSE PREMIUM — Earlier Community figurative mark Premium — Absolute ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Opposition rejected — 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 55-60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2010 (Case R 522/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC and fenaco Genossenschaft.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;