ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2016 —

Niagara Bottling v EUIPO (NIAGARA)

(Case T‑89/15)

‛EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark NIAGARA — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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. 12)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 13, 14)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Geographical names (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 15-17, 19)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 18)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 NIAGARA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20, 27, 28)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Refusal of registration based on one of the absolute grounds for refusal set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Whether sufficient (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)) (see para. 40)

7. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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, Arts 7(1), and 75, first sentence) (see para. 45)

8. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries — Decisions not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 49)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2014 (Case R 784/2014-5), concerning the international registration designating the European Union of the word mark NIAGARA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 April 2016 —

Jääkiekon SM-liiga v EUIPO (Liiga)

(Case T‑54/15)

‛EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Liiga — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 15)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 16-18)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 Liiga (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19-23, 25)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2014 (Case R 576/2014-2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Liiga as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
4.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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. 26)
1.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 19-21, 50)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 6 December 2016 — The Art Company B & S v EUIPO — Manifatture Daddato and Laurora (SHOP ART)

(Case T‑735/15)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark SHOP ART — Earlier EU figurative mark art — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 18, 19, 44, 46)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 20, 21)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 SHOP ART and art (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 47-51)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2015 (Case R 3050/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between The Art Company B & S, on the one hand, and Manifatture Daddato and Ms Laurora, on the other.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 October 2015 (Case R 3050/2014‑1);
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 —

Azur Space Solar Power v EUIPO (Representation of white lines and bricks on a black background)

(Case T‑578/15)

(EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing white lines and bricks on a black background — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 paras 11, 12)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Figurative mark consisting of the two-dimensional representation of a product—Distinctive character—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 13-18)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Figurative mark representing white lines and bricks on a black background (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 30, 41, 42)

4. EU trade mark—Procedural provisions—Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion—Registration of a new trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), and 76(1)) (see paras 34, 35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2015 (Case R 2780/2014-4), concerning the international registration designating the European Union of a figurative mark representing white lines and bricks on a black background.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
2.

EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Application to documents concerning a procedure for failure to fulfil obligations during the pre-contentions phase of the latter — General presumption that the exception applies to the right of access to all the documents on the administrative file — Lawfulness — Limits (Art. 258, first para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), third indent) (see paras 44-46, 48)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 —

Thun 1794 v EUIPO — Adekor (Decorative graphical symbols)

(Case T‑420/15)

‛Community design — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — Registered Community design representing decorative graphical symbols — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Disclosure of earlier design — Lack of novelty — Articles 5, 7 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002’

1. Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — Lack of novelty — Previous disclosure of identical design — Proof of the disclosure (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 5(1)(b), and 7(1); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28(1)(b)(v)) (see paras 26, 27)

2. Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — Lack of novelty — Previous disclosure of identical design — Representation of decorative graphic symbols (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 5(1)(b), and 7(1)) (see paras 28, 30-34)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2015 (Case R 1465/2014-3) relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Thun 1794 and Adekor.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 October 2016 — Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten v EUIPO — Mareea Comtur (airpass.ro)

(Case T‑14/15)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark airpass.ro — Earlier EU word mark AirPlus International — Opposition dismissed — Rule 21 of Regulation (EC) No 2865/95 — No need to adjudicate — Article 81(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to the proceedings — Persons whose claims not upheld by a decision — Decision entirely upholding the party’s claims (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(4)) (see para. 20)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time when the action was lodged — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — None — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 22, 23)

3. EU 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 paras 30, 31)

4. EU 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 para. 32)

5. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 October 2014 (Case R 1918/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten and SC Mareea Comtur.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 October 2014 (Case R 1918/2013-5) in so far as it concerns ‘advertising; business management; business administration; office functions’ in Class 35 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;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 September 2016 —

Lotte v EUIPO — Kuchenmeister (KOALA LAND)

(Case T‑479/15)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark KOALA LAND — Prior national word mark KOALA — Rejection in part of the application for registration — Likelihood of confusion — Genuine use — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. EU 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 15-17, 25)

2. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), second para., (a), and 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 30)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 36, 44, 50)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 KOALA LAND and KOALA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 41, 43, 47, 48, 53)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 38)

6. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Examination by the EU judicature — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 55)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2015 (Case R 815/2014-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Kuchenmeister and Lotte.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 September 2016 — Kozmetika Afrodita v EUIPO — Núñez Martín and Machado Montesinos (AFRODITA COSMETICS)

(Case T‑575/15)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark AFRODITA COSMETICS — Earlier national word mark EXOTIC AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL and earlier national figurative mark AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21-23, 58)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 AFRODITA COSMETICS — Word mark EXOTIC AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL and figurative mark AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 60-64)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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. 26)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 29-32, 41)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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. 63)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2015 (Case R 2578/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Mr Núñez Martín and Ms Machado Montesinos and, on the other, Kozmetika Afrodita.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
In the light of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration, EUIPO must, when examining an application for registration of an EU trade mark, take into account the decisions already taken in respect of similar applications and consider with especial care whether it should decide in the same way or not. In the light of its obligation to state reasons, the Board of Appeal cannot depart from EUIPO’s decision-making practice without providing the slightest explanation regarding the reasons which have led it to take the view that the factual findings in respect of the reputation of the earlier marks, which were made in those decisions, are not, or are no longer, relevant. The finding that the earlier marks have a reputation is a finding of a factual nature which does not depend on the mark applied for.

Moreover, in circumstances where earlier decisions of the Office relied on by the applicant are not accompanied by evidence of the repute of the earlier marks produced in the context of those earlier procedures, the Board of Appeal must, in accordance with the principle of sound administration, either request that the applicant submit supplementary evidence of the reputation of the earlier marks — if only to rebut it —, as the third subparagraph of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 enables it to do, or state the reasons why it takes the view that the findings made in those previous decisions as regards the reputation of the earlier marks have to be discounted.

(see paras 20, 33-35, 37)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 September 2016 —

Satkirit Holdings v EUIPO — Advanced Mailing Solutions (luvoworld)

(Case T‑450/15)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark luvoworld — Earlier EU work mark luvo — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 18, 19, 51)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 luvoworld and luvo (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22-26, 49, 50, 52, 53)

3. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Facts, evidence and observations submitted in support of the opposition — Opportunity for the opposing party to adduce evidence in support of the opposition (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 15(2)(c), and (3)(b), and 19(1)) (see paras 31, 33)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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. 36)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 39)

6. EU 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 43, 47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2015 (Case R 1480/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Advanced Mailing Solutions and Satkirit Holdings.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Arts 44(1)(c), 130(1), and 132(1))

(see paras 15-17)
EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO—Examination by the Board of Appeal—Scope—Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose—Account taken—Discretion of the Board of Appeal

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 63(1), 64(1), and 76; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 20(1), and 50(1), third subpara.)

(see paras 21-24, 35-38)