ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NAMMU)

(Case T‑498/13)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark NAMMU — Relative ground for refusal — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Rule 22(2) to (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95’

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 57(2) and (3)) (see paras 22, 23, 45)

2. 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 June 2013 (Case R 611/2012-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Vincci Hoteles SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Acts intended to have legal effects — Concept — Conditions (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 21, 23, 24, 51)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 22)

3. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission decision to open a formal investigation procedure into a State measure in the course of implementation and to classify it provisionally as new aid — Included (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(3) TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 26-28)

4. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission decision to open a formal investigation procedure into a State measure no longer being implemented — Not included (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(2) and (3) TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 33, 37, 42, 55, 56, 58)

5. Judicial proceedings — Admissibility of actions — Judged by reference to the situation when the application was lodged (see para. 44)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 2542 final of 25 April 2012 to open the proceedings provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU concerning State Aid SA 33451 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Romania — Preferential tariffs in contracts between Hidroelectrica SA and electricity suppliers.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Alpiq RomIndustries Srl and Alpiq RomEnergie Srl to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 January 2015 — Enercon v OHIM (Gradient of five shades of the colour green)

(Case T‑655/13)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community trade mark consisting of a gradient of five shades of the colour green — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Reclassification of the mark applied for — Article 43(2) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Registration procedure — Withdrawal, restriction and amendment of the trade mark application — Application for rectification of the mark — Rectification consisting in a reclassification of the mark — Modification substantially affecting the mark — Dismissal of application (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 43(2)) (see paras 14, 16, 17)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Signs capable of constituting a mark — Colours or combinations of colours — Condition — Distinctive character — Account to be taken of the public interest in not unduly restricting the availability of colours (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23-27)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Gradient of five shades of the colour green (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 35-40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 247/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of a gradient of five shades of the colour green as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 December 2014 —

Netherlands Maritime Technology Association v Commission

(Case T‑140/13)

‛State aid — Spanish scheme of early depreciation of certain assets acquired through financial leasing — Decision finding no State aid — Formal investigation procedure not initiated — Serious difficulties — Circumstances and length of the preliminary examination — Insufficient and incomplete examination’

1. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Preliminary review and main review — Compatibility of aid with the internal market — Difficulties of assessment — Commission’s duty to initiate the main review procedure — Serious difficulties — Concept — Objective nature — Burden of proof — Circumstances the existence of such difficulties to be determined — Duration insufficiency or incompleteness of the examination by the Commission at the time of the preliminary investigation procedure (Arts 107(1) TFEU and 108(2) and (3) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 4(4), and 13(1)) (see paras 44-48)

2. State aid — Concept — Selective nature of the measure — Tax scheme permitting the early depreciation of certain assets acquired through financial leasing — General measure applicable without distinction to all economic operators (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 54, 90, 99, 100)

3. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Preliminary review and main review — Aid incompatible with the internal market — Difficulties of assessment — Commission’s duty to initiate the main review procedure — Circumstances enabling the existence of such difficulties to be determined — Mere lodging of a complaint or observations from third parties — Not included (Arts 107(1) TFEU and 108(2) and (3) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 4(4), and 13(1)) (see paras 58, 60)

4. State aid — Planned aid — Examination by the Commission — Preliminary phase — Duration — Mandatory nature of the two-month time-limit established to ensure legal certainty for the notifying Member State — Consequences where that time-limit exceeded — Significant exceeding of the time-limit capable of constituting an indication of the existence of serious difficulties requiring the main procedure to be opened — Assessment on a case-by-case basis (Art. 108(2) and (3) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 4(5)) (see paras 64, 66, 73, 74, 110)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission Decision of 20 November 2012 relating to State aid SA 34736 (12/N) concerning the implementation by the Kingdom of Spain of a tax scheme permitting the early depreciation of certain assets acquired through financial leasing.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as unfounded;

2. Orders Netherlands Maritime Technology Association to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 —

Red Bull v OHIM — Sun Mark (BULLDOG)

(Case T‑78/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BULLDOG — Earlier international and national word marks BULL and RED BULL — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identical nature of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Conceptual similarity — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — 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 21, 22, 56)

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 BULLDOG — Word marks BULL and RED BULL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 54, 60, 61)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 28, 33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 November 2012 (Case R 107/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Red Bull GmbH and Sun Mark Ltd.

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 16 November 2012 (Case R 107/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Red Bull GmbH and Sun Mark Ltd;

2. Declares Red Bull’s plea that Sun Mark be ordered to pay the costs inadmissible;
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 — Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 19)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — Radecki v OHIM — Vamed (AKTIVAMED)

(Case T‑551/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark AKTIVAMED — Earlier national figurative mark VAMED — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) 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 20-22, 24, 63)

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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 30)

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 — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 31)

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 38-40)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — word mark AKTIVAMED and figurative mark VAMED (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 64-67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 July 2013 (Case R 365/2012‑1) relating to opposition proceedings between Vamed AG and Michael Radecki.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 — Coexistence of earlier marks — Recognition of a certain degree of distinctiveness of a national mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b), and (2)(a)(ii); European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95, Art. 3(1)(b)) (see paras 56-59)
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 — Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 25)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2015 — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure v OHIM — Gauff (Gauff JBG Ingenieure)

(Case T‑585/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Gauff JBG Ingenieure — Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks GAUFF — Relative grounds for refusal — Partial refusal to register — Application for restitutio in integrum — Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Restitutio in integrum — Conditions — Vigilance required by circumstances — Exceptional events, which cannot therefore be predicted (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 81(1)) (see paras 22-24)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Restitutio in integrum — Conditions under which applicable — Restrictive interpretation (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 81(1)) (see para. 25)

3. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality (see para. 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 596/2013-1) relating to an application for restitutio in integrum.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 3 June 2015 — Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) and Luxembourg Industries v Commission

(Case T‑578/13)

‛Action for annulment — Plant protection products — Publication of documents relating to the inclusion of an active substance — Refusal of the request for confidential treatment of certain information — Contested act not attributable to the defendant — Inadmissibility’

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the defendant — Designation as defendant, without error on the part of the applicant, of a person other than the author of the contested measure — Inadmissibility — Limits — Factors allowing the defendant to be identified without difficulty (Art. 263, first para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(b)) (see paras 49-51)

2. Actions for annulment — Admissibility criteria — Action against the author of the contested measure — Exceptions — Measures adopted under delegated powers attributable to the delegating institution — Decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to publish certain information provided by an undertaking which requested confidential treatment — Competence of the EFSA to adopt that decision — Action directed against the Commission — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1107/2009, Arts 12 and 63; Commission Regulation No 188/2011, Art. 7(2)) (see paras 53, 67, 69, 73, 80, 83)

3. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Exclusion (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 54)

4. Actions for annulment — Capacity to be a defendant — European Food Safety Authority — Body, office or agency of the EU (Art. 263, first para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 178/2002) (see para. 56)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision, notified by letter of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 8 October 2013, to publish certain parts of documents in respect of which the applicants had requested confidentiality.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
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 capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 15)

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 — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16-19, 31)

3. 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 — Neologism consisting of elements descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services concerned — Whether included where the nature of the combination is not unusual (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 20)

4. 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 GREASECUTTER (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 22, 26-28, 43)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries — Decisions not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 41)

6. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 42)

7. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Overlap between the scope of the grounds for refusal set out in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 47, 48)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1704/2012-2), concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word mark GREASECUTTER.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ecolab USA, Inc. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Revocation proceedings — Facts and evidence not submitted within the prescribed time-limit — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 51(1)(a), and 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 40(5)) (see paras 12, 13,16)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements 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, Arts 15(1)(a), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 24, 25, 29)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Word mark AINHOA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 28, 30-32)

4. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(3)) (see paras 35, 37-40)

5. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(3)) (see para. 36)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 June 2013 (Case R 1642/2012-1), relating to revocation proceedings between L’Oréal and Cosmetica Cabinas SL.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.