ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 June 2015 —

Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb v OHIM — Yorma’s (Yorma Eberl)

(Case T‑229/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Yorma Eberl — Earlier Community and national word marks NORMA — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(4) 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 15-17, 38, 39)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks Yorma Eberl and NORMA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19, 22, 37, 54, 55, 65)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 20)

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 — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 32)

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 — High distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 44, 47, 49, 51)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2014 (Case R 532/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG and Yorma’s AG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 15-17, 39)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-21)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark AERONAUTICA — Word marks NAUTICA and NAUTICA BLUE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25-36, 47)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 44)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 January 2014 (Case R 96/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Nautica Apparel, Inc. and Cristiano di Thiene SpA.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Cristiano di Thiene SpA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence) (see paras 12, 13)

2. 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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20-22)

3. 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 — Figurative mark FlexValve (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23, 24, 29, 30, 40, 52)

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 — Concept — Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 34, 35)

5. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 57, 58)

6. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Plea alleging absence or inadequacy of the statement of reasons — Plea alleging incorrectness of the statement of reasons — Distinction (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 59)

7. 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 goods or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), and 75, first sentence) (see paras 65-68)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 June 2014 (Case R 2435/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign FlexValve as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mechadyne International Ltd 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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 22)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted by a colour or a combination of colours (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23-26)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 27)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark representing white dots on a yellow background (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 57, 58)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Examination of the grounds for refusal having regard to each of the products or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 60)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 November 2013 (Case R 703/2013-2) relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing white dots on a yellow background.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders EE Ltd to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 —

Hewlett Packard Development Company v OHIM (ELITEDISPLAY)

(Case T‑563/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark ELITEDISPLAY — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(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 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 paras 17, 18, 34)

2. 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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19-21)

3. 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 ELITEDISPLAY (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 26-31)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (see paras 35, 36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1539/2013-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ELITEDISPLAY as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 October 2015 —

The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a face in the form of a star)

(Case T‑244/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a face in the form of a star — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 31)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark constituted by the shape of the product — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 32-38)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark constituted by the shape of a face in the form of a star (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 42-50)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see paras 52-56)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2014 (Case R 838/2013-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a face in the form of a star.

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 16 January 2014 (Case R 838/2013-1) with regard to the refusal to register the mark applied for in respect of ‘preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; milk products’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 —

Volkswagen v OHIM (CHOICE)

(Case T‑431/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark CHOICE — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 12, 13)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Inadmissibility (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 16)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Slogan carrying an objective message (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 17)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 18)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogan — Word mark CHOICE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21, 27-32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2014 (Case R 2019/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign CHOICE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
1.

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 paras 12, 36, 43)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 18 November 2015 —

Liu v OHIM — DSN Marketing (Case for a portable computer)

(Case T‑813/14)

‛Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a case for a portable computer — Identical earlier designs — Ground for invalidity — Lack of novelty within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of earlier designs prior to the priority date — Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 6/2002’

1. Community designs — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 62, first sentence, of Regulation No 6/2002 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU — Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62) (see para. 15)

2. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Disclosure by the designer or his successor in title (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 7(2)) (see paras 21-23)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2014 (Case R 1864/2013-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between DSN Marketing Ltd and Mr Min Liu.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 22)
2.

Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Request presented expressly and on time by the applicant — Possibility of submitting the application for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3); Council Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(1), and Rule 20(2)) (see paras 22-24)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 24 February 2016 —

Tayto Group v OHIM — MIP Metro (REAL HAND COOKED)

(Case T‑816/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark REAL HAND COOKED — Earlier national figurative mark real QUALITY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Misuse of power — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 64, 75, 76 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence) (see para. 33)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Boards of Appeal — Classification as administration of the Office — No right of the parties to a fair ‘process’ (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 34)

3. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties — No obligation on OHIM to accept points put forward by a party which have not been challenged by the other party (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 39)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 43-45)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49-54)

6. 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 — Figurative marks REAL HAND COOKED and real QUALITY (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 63-66, 72-77, 80-83, 87)

7. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see paras 91, 92)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2014 (Case R 842/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Tayto Group Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
It follows from the wording of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 that, as a general rule and unless otherwise specified, the submission of facts and evidence by the parties remains possible after the expiry of the time limits to which such submission is subject under the provisions of that regulation and that OHIM is in no way prohibited from taking account of facts and evidence which are submitted or produced out of time, that is to say, after the time limit set by the Cancellation Division and, as the case may be, for the first time before the Board of Appeal.

In stating that OHIM ‘may’ decide to disregard facts and evidence submitted or produced out of time, Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 grants OHIM a broad discretion to decide, while giving reasons for its decision in that regard, whether or not to take such information into account.

Moreover, as regards the exercise of that discretion by OHIM for the purposes of the possible taking into account of evidence submitted out of time, it should be noted that the Court has already held that where OHIM is called upon to give judgment in the context of opposition proceedings, taking such facts or evidence into account is particularly likely to be justified where OHIM considers, first, that the material produced late is, on the face of it, likely to be relevant to the outcome of the opposition brought before it and, second, that the stage of the proceedings at which that late submission takes place and the circumstances surrounding it do not preclude such matters being taken into account.

(see paras 28-30)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2016 —

Airpressure Bodyforming v OHIM (Slim legs by airpressure bodyforming)

(Case T‑842/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Slim legs by airpressure bodyforming — Refusal of registration by the examiner — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of descriptive character — 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 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. 14)

2. 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 — Concept — Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 15-18, 37)

3. 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 Slim legs by airpressure bodyforming (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23, 35, 40, 48, 49)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 October 2014 (Case R 1570/2014-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Slim legs by airpressure bodyforming as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;