ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
31

The judgment in MUNDICOR, cited in paragraph 12 above, for its part, after having set out the principles recalled in paragraph 28 above, concludes that ‘the lack of proof of genuine use can only be penalised by rejecting the opposition where the applicant [for a Community trade mark] expressly and timeously requested such proof before OHIM’ (paragraph 39). In that case, the Court of First Instance held that a request for the purposes of Article 43(2) of Regulation No 40/94 had never been submitted before OHIM, stating that ‘[t]hat conclusion is not undermined by the applicant’s argument that it did not request proof of use on the ground that Iberia had spontaneously presented before the Opposition Division documents which showed that it had made use of the earlier marks in a form other than that in which they had been registered’ (paragraph 42). On that issue, the Court also observed that that argument was manifestly unfounded, since it was apparent from the case-file that Iberia did not produce the documents in question to the Opposition Division to prove use of its earlier marks, but in order to prove the reputation of those marks and thus to substantiate the existence of a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. According to the Court, the production of such documents cannot, in any event, replace the requirement for an express request on the part of the applicant that there be proof of genuine use so that the question of such use must be examined and decided by OHIM (paragraph 43).
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 16 September 2009 – JanSport Apparel v OHIM (BUILT TO RESIST)

(Case T-80/07)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark BUILT TO RESIST – Absolute ground for refusal – 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 – 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 24-29, 41-47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of 12 January 2007 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1090/2006-2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BUILT TO RESIST as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: JanSport Apparel Corp. Community trade mark sought: National word mark ‘BUILT TO RESIST’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 18 and 25 – Application No 2937522 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders JanSport Apparel Corp. to pay the costs.
191

In their reply, the applicants claim, first, that clear requests for new data were made. Therefore, irrespective of when in the process those requests were made, the Commission should have taken account of the data submitted in response to those requests. Second, where the competent authorities extend the deadlines ‘to suit themselves’, the timing of the whole review process must also be adapted. Directive 91/414 contains rules concerning the deadlines for the assessment of active substances not only for the notifiers but also for the RMS, EFSA and the Commission. The competent authorities cannot seek to enforce ‘to the letter’ deadlines that apply to Cheminova where they fail themselves to comply with the deadlines to which they are subject. Thus, EFSA exceeded by almost one year the time-limit in Article 8(7) of Regulation No 451/2000. Third, deadlines can be moved in the light of the circumstances of the case. In its judgment in Industrias Químicas del Vallés v Commission, cited in paragraph 106 above, the Court of Justice held that where the evaluators (namely the RMS, EFSA and the Commission) place the notifying party in an unforeseen and complicated situation by changing their mind in relation to the data submitted or request new data without allowing it sufficient time to produce those data, they are required to extend the applicable deadlines. In this case, Cheminova was facing a change of circumstances (request for new data) inconsistent with earlier conduct on the part of the RMS (decision that the dossier was complete). Requests for data were sent to Cheminova at a late stage in the process and after the dossier had been declared complete, but it was not given sufficient opportunity by EFSA or the Commission to provide the data requested. In those circumstances, the Commission cannot legitimately claim that an indefinite extension of the time-limit for evaluating an active substance would be contrary to the objectives of Directive 91/414. Fourth, the Commission based the contested decision on data which no longer corresponded to ‘current scientific and technical knowledge’, in breach of Article 5(1) of Directive 91/414. The ‘principle’ laid down by that provision applies not only to Directive 91/414 itself but also to all measures adopted by the Commission pursuant to that ‘framework directive’, including the contested decision.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 2010 – Cabel Hall Citrus v OHIM – Casur (EGLÉFRUIT)

(Case T-488/07)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark EGLÉFRUIT – Earlier Community word mark UGLI and earlier national figurative mark ‘UGLI Fruit – but the affliction is only skin deep’ – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 52(1)(a)) (see paras 30, 47-48, 50-51)

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 19 September 2007 (Case R 293/2007-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Cabel Hall Citrus Ltd and Casur S. Coop. Andaluza.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: Word mark EGLÉFRUIT for goods and services in Classes 29, 30 and 31 – Community trade mark No 3517431 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Casur S. Coop. Andaluza Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Cabel Hall Citrus Ltd Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Community work mark UGLI for goods in Classes 29, 31 and 32 and national figurative mark UGLI Fruit – but the affliction is only skin deep for products in Class 31 Decision of the Cancellation Division: Cancellation refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Cabel Hall Citrus Ltd to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 September 2011 – Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-442/07)

State aid – Aviation sector – Aid granted by the Italian authorities to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana – Action for failure to act – Failure by the Commission to define its position – Obligation to act

1. Actions for failure to act – Institution called upon to act – Conditions – Clear and express request – Letter of formal notice addressed to the Commission listing and complaining of the existence of various aid measures incompatible with the common market – Admissibility (Arts 87 EC, 88(2) EC and 232 EC) (see paras 22-26, 41)

2. Actions for failure to act – Commission’s duty to act – Obligation to examine information concerning allegedly unlawful aid – Obligation either to inform the party concerned where the grounds are insufficient, or to adopt a decision at the conclusion of the preliminary phase of the investigation – Failure to act (Art. 232 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 4, 10(1) and 20(2)) (see paras 28-30, 37-38, 50-52, 67-68)

3. State aid – Examination of complaints – Obligations of the Commission – Obligation to examine information concerning allegedly unlawful aid – No formal requirements for lodging a complaint (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 10(1)) (see paras 32-34)

4. Actions for failure to act – Commission’s duty to act – Obligation to examine information concerning allegedly unlawful aid – Conditions – Existence of a complaint – Allegedly unlawful character of the aid measures in question having to be apparent from the information supplied by the party concerned (Art. 232 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 10(1)) (see paras 45-47, 62-64, 74-76)

Re:

APPLICATION for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in unlawfully failing to define its position on the applicant’s complaints concerning, first, aid allegedly granted by the Italian Republic to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana and, second, an alleged infringement of competition law.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that the Commission of the European Communities failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt a decision in respect of (i) the transfer of the 100 Alitalia employees, complained of in the letter of 16 June 2006 sent to the Commission by Ryanair Ltd, (ii) the compensation granted following the attacks of 11 September, complained of in the letters of 3 November and 13 December 2005 sent to the Commission by Ryanair, and (iii) the reductions in airport charges at hub airports, from which Alitalia, in particular, is claimed to have benefited, complained of in those letters of 3 November and 13 December 2005;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 1 July 2009 — Perfetti Van Melle v OHIM — Cloetta Fazer (CENTER SHOCK)

(Case T-16/08)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark CENTER SHOCK — Earlier national word marks CENTER — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)’

Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds of invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 8(1)(b) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 41-44, 49-50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 November 2007 (Case R 149/2006-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Cloetta Fazer AB and Perfetti Van Melle SpA.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘CENTER SHOCK’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark No 973065 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Perfetti Van Melle SpA Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Cloetta Fazer AB Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The national word marks ‘CENTER’ and ‘CLOETTA CENTER’ for goods in, inter alia, Class 30 Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Invalidity – Temporary staff – Application for reconsideration of a decision refusing to initiate the invalidity procedure – Significant extension of the staff member’s sick leave following rejection of his first request – New fact justifying reconsideration and initiation of the procedure

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 33)

Where a member of the temporary staff submits an application for reconsideration of a decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of engagement which rejected a first request by that staff member for his case to be referred to the Invalidity Committee, the authority must reconsider that decision if the new application is based on new and substantial facts, and must agree to that request if, in the light of those facts, it is now conceivable that, on the basis of objective and undisputed information in the authority’s possession, the basic conditions set out in Article 33 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants are satisfied.

The authority authorised to conclude contracts of engagement is obliged to undertake such a reconsideration not just where the state of health of the temporary staff member concerned is different from the state of health known to the authority when it adopted the decision whose reconsideration is sought, or where the staff member’s work incapacity results from a different disorder from that identified and taken into account in that decision. It is possible that certain new circumstances may be capable, even if they do not demonstrate that the state of health of the temporary staff member concerned is different, of substantially modifying the conditions which governed the earlier decision refusing to refer the case to the Invalidity Committee and, therefore, of being treated as new and substantial facts requiring reconsideration of that decision.

The extension of the staff member’s sick leave for a significant period following the rejection of his first request to refer his case to the Invalidity Committee constitutes such a fact, even if that new leave is justified by the same disorder as that taken into consideration when the first request was rejected. While it is, admittedly, possible that the institution concerned may conclude that the absence of a member of the temporary staff from his workplace on account of illness does not justify the referral of his case to the Invalidity Committee where that institution possesses objective and undisputed evidence that the staff member in question will very shortly be able to resume his duties, the fact nevertheless remains that the extension of that person’s sick leave for a significant period undeniably constitutes sound evidence capable of creating doubt about his prospects of resuming his duties, and thus calling into question the validity of the initial refusal to refer his case to the Invalidity Committee.

(see paras 59, 63-66)
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 Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Surrender, revocation and invalidity

–

Application for revocation

–

Admissibility

–

Conditions

–

Interest in bringing proceedings (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 55(1)(a)) (see paras 18-23

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 April 2008 in Case R 708/2007-1 concerning revocation proceedings between AD Bulgartabac Holding Sofia and Iranian Tobacco Co.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Iranian Tobacco Co. 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39, 59-60

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 May 2008 (Case R 459/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Uriach-Aquilea OTC, SL and Bayer Healthcare LLC.

Information relating to the case

>lt>7

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bayer Healthcare LLC 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 62

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2008 (Case R 469/2008-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Byly SA and Vasileios Ginis.

Information relating to the case

>lt>9

Operative part

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 15 September 2008 (Case R 469/2008-2);

2. Orders OHIM 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2008 (Case R 1591/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between 2nine Ltd and Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>9

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders 2nine Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
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 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 33-34, 51-53

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2008 (Case R 1467/2007‑1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign TERRAEFFEKT matt & gloss as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Actega Terra GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character

–

Exception

–

Acquisition of distinctive character through use (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b), and (3)) (see paras 68, 78, 84, 102, 119-120

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2007 (Case R 104/2001-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign representing a frosted black matt bottle as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Freixenet, SA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Aid categories, set out in legislation, which can be regarded as compatible with the common market – Regulation No 68/2001 on training aid (Art. 87(3) EC; Commission Regulation No 68/2001, Art. 5) (see paras 36-39, 42-45)

2. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Aid benefiting from the derogation provided under Article 87(3)(c) EC – Operating aid – Not included (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see paras 46-48, 51-52)

3. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Uniform interpretation of EU Law – Interpretation and application in the light of the versions in the various official languages (see para. 53)

4. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market – Assessment in the light of Article 87 EC (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see para. 54)

5. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Training aid – Assessment of the need for the aid (Arts 87(3) EC and 88(2) and (3) EC) (see paras 78, 80, 88)

6. State aid – Examination by the Commission – No observations by the persons concerned – Not relevant to the validity of the Commission decision (Art. 88(2) EC) (see para. 97)

7. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Factors to be taken into consideration (Arts 87(3) EC and 88(2) and (3) EC) (see paras 107-108)

8. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Aid benefiting from the derogation provided under Article 87(3)(c) EC – Conditions – Training aid – Criterion that the aid be necessary (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see para. 117)

9. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Aid benefiting from the derogation provided under Article 87(3)(c) EC – Conditions – Training aid – Criterion that the aid be necessary (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see paras 130-131, 133)

10. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision on State aid (Arts 87(3) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 143-144)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/878/EC of 2 July 2008 on State aid which Germany is planning to implement for DHL (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 31).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.
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 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 27, 45-46

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 (Case R 1525/2006-4) concerning the registration of the word sign ROI ANALYZER as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>15

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor to pay the costs.