ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2013 — Singer v OHIM — Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zártkörüen Müködö (CORDIO)

(Case T-388/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark CORDIO — Earlier Community word mark CORDIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) 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 24, 25, 46)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 26)

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 marks CORDIO and CORDIA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 37, 45, 48)

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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 31)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2012 (Case R 1842/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zártkörüen Müködö rt and Ms Daniela Singer.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Daniela Singer to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by OHIM;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Scope — No obligation to prove matters within common knowledge (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 24)

2. 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 — Sign being confused with the appearance of the designated product (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 32-34, 47)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Red shoelace end caps (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 35-40)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see paras 55, 56)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2012 (Case R 1552/2011-1), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a sign consisting of red shoelace end caps.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Think Schuhwerk GmbH to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 — Effect — Burden of proof on the opponent — No challenge to the material put forward in support of the opposition — Irrelevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2)) (see para. 26)

2. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 41)

3. 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 — Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 42, 51)

4. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Account taken by the General Court of evidence not previously raised before the departments of OHIM — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), second para., (b), and 65) (see para. 56)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2011 (Case R 2255/2010-1), relating to an opposition procedure between Herbacin cosmetic GmbH and Laboratoire Garnier et Cie.

Operative part

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 22 November 2011 (Case R 2255/2010-1);

2. Orders the OHIM to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 23 January 2014 —

Sunrider v OHIM — Nannerl (SUN FRESH)

(Case T‑221/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark SUN FRESH — Earlier Community, Benelux and national word and figurative marks SUNNY FRESH, SUNRIDER SUNNY FRESH and SUNNYFRESH — Relative ground for refusal — Proof of the genuine use of earlier marks — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) 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 58-60)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 61, 62)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2012 (Case R 2401/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between The Sunrider Corporation and Nannerl GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders The Sunrider Corporation to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 23 January 2014 —

Sunrider v OHIM — Nannerl (SUN FRESH)

(Case T‑221/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark SUN FRESH — Earlier Community, Benelux and national word and figurative marks SUNNY FRESH, SUNRIDER SUNNY FRESH and SUNNYFRESH — Relative ground for refusal — Proof of the genuine use of earlier marks — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) 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 58-60)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 61, 62)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2012 (Case R 2401/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between The Sunrider Corporation and Nannerl GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2013 — Leiner v OHIM — Recaro (REVARO)

(Case T‑349/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark REVARO — Earlier international word mark RECARO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 14, 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 — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 16)

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 — Figurative mark REVARO and word mark RECARO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18, 29, 34, 35, 40, 41)

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 — Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 22)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 May 2012 (Case R 482/2011‑1), concerning opposition proceedings between Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH and Rudolf Leiner GmbH.

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 — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks to be refused under the Paris Convention — Protection of emblems of States and international organisations — Imitation from the heraldic point of view — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(h)) (see paras 20, 21, 36-40, 47, 60-63)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Figurative mark European Network Rapid Manufacturing (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(h)) (see paras 64-70)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2012 (Case R 793/2011‑1) relating to invalidity proceedings between the European Commission and Heinrich Beteiligungs GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Heinrich Beteiligungs GmbH to bear its own costs and 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 devoid of any distinctive character — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 14-16)

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 17-19)

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 of a fantastic nature (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 20)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Exception — Distinctive character acquired through use — Word mark Ab in den Urlaub (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b), and (3)) (see paras 21-32, 39-41)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Exception — Distinctive character acquired through use — Mark devoid of distinctive character in part of the Union — Acquisition of distinctive character in that same part (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(3)) (see paras 37, 38)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2012 (Case R 2150/2011-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark Ab in den Urlaub as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Unister GmbH to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 30 September 2014 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)

(Case T‑132/12)

‛Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark LAMBRETTA — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)) (see paras 16, 25)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76) (see para. 24)

Re:

ACTION for annulment brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2012 (Case R 2308/2010-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Brandconcern BV and Scooters India Ltd.

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 12 January 2012 (Case R 2308/2010-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Scooters India Ltd, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

3. Orders Brandconcern BV to bear its own costs.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 30 September 2014 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)

(Case T‑132/12)

‛Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark LAMBRETTA — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)) (see paras 16, 25)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76) (see para. 24)

Re:

ACTION for annulment brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2012 (Case R 2308/2010-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Brandconcern BV and Scooters India Ltd.

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 12 January 2012 (Case R 2308/2010-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Scooters India Ltd, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;
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 19, 20, 65)

2. 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 — Well-known facts taken into account (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see paras 29, 30)

3. Procedure — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — New plea — Concept (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2), first para.) (see para. 51)

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 — Word marks LINEX and LINES PERLA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 62-64, 70)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 August 2012 (Case R 414/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tenimenti Angelini SpA and Novartis AG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 August 2012 (Case R 414/2011-4);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant;

3. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
As regards the marketing of ‘similar’ medicinal products within the meaning of Regulation No 847/2000 laying down the provisions for implementation of the criteria for designation of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product and definitions of the concepts ‘similar medicinal product’ and ‘clinical superiority’, Article 8(3) of Regulation No 141/2000 on orphan medicinal products has no bearing on the conditions under which marketing authorisation for such a medicinal product may be granted, but provides, by way of derogation from Article 8(1) of Regulation No 141/2000, that such a medicinal product may be granted marketing authorisation in three cases. There is nothing in that provision concerning whether such authorisation confers market exclusivity on a similar medicinal product.

A similar medicinal product may itself be an orphan medicinal product or a non-orphan medicinal product. If it is not an orphan product, the marketing authorisation for that product will not confer on it any sort of market exclusivity under Article 8(1) of Regulation No 141/2000. On the other hand, it if is an orphan medicinal product, the ten-year period of market exclusivity with which it is endowed by virtue of Article 8(1) of the regulation cannot be curtailed as a result of the fact that there exists an orphan medicinal product which has received marketing authorisation for the same therapeutic indications and which benefits from market exclusivity for those indications.

Accordingly, the marketing authorisation granted for an orphan medicinal product in respect of the same therapeutic indications as those for which the original orphan product was authorised, including on one of the grounds laid down in Article 8(3) of Regulation No 141/2000, automatically confers on that product the ten-year period of market exclusivity provided for in Article 8(1) of that regulation. It is precisely in order to ensure attainment of the objective pursued by the regulation — namely to encourage investment in research, development and marketing of orphan medicinal products — that market exclusivity must be granted in all cases in which an orphan product has been given marketing authorisation. In that regard, the ten-year period of market exclusivity provided by Regulation No 141/2000 as an incentive for the development and marketing of orphan medicinal products cannot be regarded as equivalent to the data protection periods enjoyed by any medicinal product which has been granted marketing authorisation, as the effects and scope of each of those mechanisms are different.

(see paras 73, 74, 78, 80, 81)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 May 2015 —

Diputación Foral de Bizkaia v Commission

(Case T‑397/12)

‛State aid — Construction — Aid provided by the Spanish authorities to the company Habidite — Agreements concluded with a view to the establishment of a factory manufacturing construction modules and the delivery of modular houses manufactured by that factory — Decision declaring the aid unlawful — Decision declaring the aid partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market — No prior notification — Rights of the defence — Obligation to give reasons’

1. State aid — Concept — Aid from State resources (Arts 107(1) TFEU and 108 TFEU) (see paras 31, 32)

2. State aid — General aid scheme approved by the Commission — Individual aid falling within the temporal scope of that scheme — Determination — Date of the legally binding act committing the competent national authority to front the aid (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 33, 42, 43)

3. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Administrative procedure — Commission obligation to give the parties concerned, and therefore the infra-State bodies, notice to submit their comments — Limits (Art. 108(2) TFEU) (see paras 53-57, 63, 64)

4. State aid — Commission decision to open a formal investigation procedure in respect of a State measure provisionally classified as new aid — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Art. 108(2) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 6) (see para. 58)

5. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Decision to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Evolution of the Commission’s position at the conclusion of the procedure — Divergence between the opening decision and the final decision — Lawfulness (Art. 108(2) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 7) (see paras 59, 60, 65)

6. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 68, 69)

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 4194 final of 27 June 2012 concerning State aid SA.28356 (C 37/2009) (ex N 226/2009).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;