ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 — Pedro Group v OHIM — Cortefiel (PEDRO)

(Case T‑38/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark PEDRO — Earlier Community figurative mark Pedro del Hierro — Partial refusal to register — Relative grounds for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Highly distinctive character of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) 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. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 27-32)

2. 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 — Territorial extent of the use (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)) (see paras 33-36)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 57-60, 75)

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 mark PEDRO and figurative mark Pedro del Hierro (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 73, 87, 90, 91)

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 para. 76)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2012 (Case R 271/2011‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between Cortefiel, SA, and Pedro Group Pte Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2014 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Stal-Florez Botero (la nana)

(Case T‑196/13)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark ‘la nana’ — Earlier national word mark NANA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Interpretation having regard to the rationale of Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 57(2) and (3)) (see paras 20, 21)

2. 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 22-25)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Partial use — Effect — Concept of ‘part of goods or services’ concerned by registration (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 57(2) and (3)) (see para. 36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2013 (Case R 300/2012-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Lina M. Stal-Florez Botero.

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 20, 21, 54)

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 — Figurative mark dodie and word marks DODOT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 28-30, 53, 57)

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 — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 32)

Subject of the case

Re:

Two actions brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2012 (Cases R 2324/2011‑2 and R 2325/2011‑2, respectively) relating to two sets of opposition proceedings between Arbora & Ausonia, SLU and Laboratoires Polive.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T‑122/13 and T‑123/13 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 November 2012 (Cases R 2324/2011‑2 and R 2325/2011‑2);

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Laboratoires Polive;

4. Orders Arbora & Ausonia, SLU to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 18 November 2014 —

Photo USA Electronic Graphic v Council

(Case T‑394/13)

‛Dumping — Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Definition of the product concerned’

1. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Investigation — Definition of the product concerned — Factors that may be taken into account — Determination of similar product having regard to the general definition of the product concerned — No need for the products under investigation to be identical and interchangeable — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Scope (Council Regulations No 1225/2009, Art. 1(4), and No 412/2013) (see paras 28-32, 34, 37, 39, 41, 45, 48)

2. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Injury — Establishing a causal link — Obligations of the institutions — Taking into account of matters extraneous to the dumping — Proper conduct of EU producers — Investigation in progress of a national competition authority concerning conduct of certain EU producers on the national market — Irrelevant (Council Regulations No 1225/2009, Art. 1(4), and No 412/2013) (see paras 65-69, 73, 74, 77, 78, 80, 81)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 131, p. 1) in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by Ancàp SpA, Cerame-Unie AISBL, Confindustria Ceramica and Verband der Keramischen Industrie eV;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 January 2015 — Blackrock v OHIM (SO WHAT DO I DO WITH MY MONEY)

(Case T‑609/13)

‛Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark SO WHAT DO I DO WITH MY MONEY — 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 — 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 19-21)

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 — Slogan with a fantasy character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 22)

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 — Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 24)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark SO WHAT DO I DO WITH MY MONEY (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26-41)

5. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal to a Board of Appeal — Competence of the Boards of Appeal — New full examination of the merits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 64(1)) (see para. 35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 572/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign SO WHAT DO I DO WITH MY MONEY as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Moreover, since the activities carried out at the Commission are regarded as services performed for an international organisation for the purposes of that provision, there would be no justification for reaching any other conclusion regarding the bodies of the European Union.

As regards the conditions for granting the expatriation allowance, under Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, an official must show that he habitually resided outside the European territory of the State in which he is employed and of which he is or was a national, for reasons other than the performance of duties in the service of a State or of an international organisation. If the official did indeed habitually reside outside the territory of the State of employment, but while in the service of a State or of an international organisation, he may not be regarded as having interrupted the lasting ties which he had established with the country of employment of which he is or was a national. It is therefore the simple fact of having been in the service of a State or international organisation during the ten-year reference period which overturns the presumption that the lasting ties established with the country of employment of which the official concerned is or was a national may be regarded as having been interrupted.

Consequently, when calculating the ten-year reference period, account must be taken, by disregarding them, of periods in which the official performed duties in the service of a State or in an international organisation, resulting in an equivalent extension of the reference period. An approach in which the fact of having worked for a State or an international organisation has no effect on the definition of the reference period would infringe both the wording and the purpose of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, since it would, in practice, treat such work in the same way as work for any other employer.

(see paras 50, 51, 54)

judgment of 24 January 2008 in Adam v Commission, C‑211/06 P, ECR-SC, EU:C:2008:34, para. 41 and the case law cited therein

judgment of 27 September 2000 in Lemaître v Commission, T‑317/99, ECR-SC, EU:T:2000:218, para. 59
Case T‑365/13

(publication by extracts)

Republic of Lithuania

v

European Commission

‛EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Rural development measures — ‘Natural handicaps’ and agri-environment — Appropriateness of controls — Flat-rate financial corrections — Proportionality’

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber), 26 February 2015

Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF and EAFRD financing — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Flat-rate correction of 5% for insufficient checks by a Member State that environmental measures connected with the criterion relating to the use of fertilisers complied with — Demonstration, by that Member State, that no significant risk for the EU budget thereby created — Breach of principle of proportionality — Annulment of the financial correction

(Council Regulation No 1290/2005, Art. 31(2); Commission Decision 2013/214)

According to Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, the Commission is to assess the amounts to be excluded from Community financing, by taking account, first, of the nature and gravity of the infringement and, secondly, of the financial damage caused to the European Union.

Therefore, Implementing Decision 2013/214 imposing a financial correction of 5% in relation to agro-environmental measures connected with the criterion relating to the use of fertilisers, based on the Commission’s finding that the visual controls carried out were insufficient, where the Member State concerned has shown to the requisite legal standard that, in practice, the lack of cross-checks in conformity with EU legislation has created only a minor financial risk for the EU budget, must be annulled. That risk does not warrant the application of a financial correction of 5% with respect to the measures concerned, which is provided for solely when the risk of loss to the EU budget is significant. Therefore, the imposition of a financial correction of 5% in such circumstances is contrary to Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and to the principle of proportionality.

(see paras 110, 118, 119, 121)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 20 January 2015 — Aic v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts)

(Case T‑617/13)

‛Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a heat exchanger insert — Ground for invalidity — Lack of visibility of part of a complex product — Article 4(2) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002’

1. Community designs — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Action for invalidity — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 63(1)) (see paras 22, 23)

2. Community designs — 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 (Council Regulation No 6/2002) (see para. 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2013 (Case R 688/2012-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between ACV Manufacturing and Aic S.A.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2015 —

Nutrexpa v OHIM — Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property (Cuétara MARĺA ORO)

(Case T‑271/13)

‛Community mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Cuétara MARÍA ORO — Earlier Community and national figurative marks ORO — Partial refusal of registration — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Claim appearing in the application and seeking to demonstrate genuine use of the earlier mark — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 65(2), and 76) (see paras 22-24)

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 paras 29, 30, 40, 55)

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 Cuétara MARÍA ORO and figurative marks ORO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 54, 57-60)

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 — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 56)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2013 (Case R 1285/2012‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property Srl and Nutrexpa, SL.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 —

easyGroup IP Licensing v OHIM — Tui (easyAir-tours)

(Case T‑608/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark easyAir-tours — Earlier national figurative mark airtours Ticket Factory — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No similarity between the signs — No likelihood of confusion — Power to alter decisions — Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 64(1), second sentence, and 65(3)) (see paras 20, 68-70)

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 paras 24, 59, 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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative marks easyAir-tours and airtours Ticket Factory (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26, 60, 64, 66)

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 — Weak distinctive character of the dominant element (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 33, 36, 47, 50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1029/2012‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Tui AG and easyGroup IP Licensing 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 5 September 2013 (Case R 1029/2012‑1);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd;
The text of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 on Community designs, concerning the assessment of individual character, lays down, in paragraph 1 thereof, the criterion of the overall impression produced by the designs at issue and states, in paragraph 2, that the degree of freedom of the designer must be taken into consideration for those purposes. It is apparent from those provisions, and in particular from Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, that the assessment of the individual character of a Community design is the result, in essence, of a four-stage examination. That examination consists in deciding upon, first, the sector to which the products in which the design is intended to be incorporated or to which it is intended to be applied belong; second, the informed user of those products in accordance with their purpose and, with reference to that informed user, the degree of awareness of the prior art and the level of attention in the comparison, direct if possible, of the designs; third, the designer’s degree of freedom in developing his design; and, fourth, the outcome of the comparison of the designs at issue, taking into account the sector in question, the designer’s degree of freedom and the overall impressions produced on the informed user by the contested design and by any earlier design which has been made available to the public.

Thus, the factor relating to the designer’s degree of freedom may ‘reinforce’ (or, a contrario, moderate) the conclusion as regards the overall impression produced by each design at issue. The assessment of the designer’s degree of freedom does not constitute a preliminary and abstract step in the comparison of the overall impression produced by each design at issue.

As regards the degree of freedom of the designer of a design, it is apparent from the case-law that that is determined, inter alia, by the constraints of the features imposed by the technical function of the product or an element thereof, or by statutory requirements applicable to the product. Those constraints result in a standardisation of certain features, which will thus be common to the designs applied to the product concerned.

Therefore, the greater the designer’s freedom in developing a design, the less likely it is that minor differences between the designs at issue will be sufficient to produce different overall impressions on an informed user. Conversely, the more the designer’s freedom in developing a design is restricted, the more likely it is that minor differences between the designs at issue will be sufficient to produce different overall impressions on an informed user. Consequently, if the designer enjoys a high degree of freedom in developing a design, that reinforces the conclusion that designs that do not have significant differences produce the same overall impression on an informed user.

(see paras 28, 29, 32, 33)
Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 September 2013 (Case R 1501/2012-2) as regards the goods in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘[r]etailing of women’s underwear and lingerie, perfumes, toilet water and cosmetic lotions, household and bath linen’ services in Class 35 of that agreement covered by the mark applied for;