ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Modification of the terms of the dispute as brought before the Board of Appeal — Not permissible (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 16)

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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25-28)

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 — Earlier mark consisting of a Community trade mark — Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 30)

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 — Figurative mark Sunless — Word marks SUNLESS and LONCAR-SUNLESS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31-34, 39-44, 50, 51, 54-56, 60-64, 67-76, 78-84)

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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 38)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 45-47, 59, 65, 66)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 September 2011 (Case R 2508/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Loncar, SL and Mr Thomas Müller.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Thomas Müller to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Conditions — Interpretation in the light of EU law — Assessment by reference to the criteria determined by the national law governing the sign relied on (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 18-20, 47)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Sign giving its holder the right to prohibit the use of a more recent trade mark — Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(4)(b), and 74(1)) (see paras 20-22)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — Commercial home Peek & Cloppenburg (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 24, 25, 31, 37, 38, 54, 55)

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 –Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 30)

5. 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 — Annulment or variation for reasons appearing after judgment was delivered — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 33)

6. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Local scope of the sign (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 47-52, 54)

7. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Local scope of the sign — Means of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see para. 53)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2011 (Case R 53/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg and Peek & Cloppenburg KG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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, Art. 65) (see para. 15)

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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 22)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 30, 31)

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 — Review of the legal classification given to the facts of the dispute — Included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 28)

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 — Word marks DIGNITUDE and Dignity (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 46, 47)

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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 33)

7. 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 — Complementary nature of the goods or services (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 28 July 2011 (Case R 1197/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Paul Hartmann AG and Protecsom SAS.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Paul Hartmann AG to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 May 2013 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-294/11)

‛EAGGF — ‘Guarantee section’ — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Olive oil — Arable crops — Manifest error of assessment — Increase in the correction due to recurrence of the infringement — Effect of the reform of the CAP on the correction — Proportionality — Nature of the expenditure intended for the establishment of the Olive GIS’

1. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof — Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (see paras 21, 22)

2. Agriculture — EAGGF — Grant of aids and premiums — Obligation of Member States to organise an effective system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks — Failure to fulfil obligations — Justification on the basis of practical difficulties — Not permissible (see paras 27, 189)

3. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Financial correction — Assessment of the level of failure to act and the degree of risk for the Fund — Elements to be taken into consideration — Gravity of the infringement — Recurrent failure — Lawfulness (Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 7(4)) (see paras 82, 84-89, 98-100)

4. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Procedure — Subject-matter — Financial correction not constituting a penalty (see para. 83)

5. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 94)

6. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Assessment of losses incurred by the Fund — Irregular expenses not capable of sufficiently precise determination — Assessment based on flat-rate corrections — Lawfulness (Council Regulation No 1290/2005, Art. 31) (see paras 154, 155, 175, 179)

7. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Specific assurances given by the authorities (see para. 193)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s Implementing Decision 2011/244/EU of 15 April 2011 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2011 L 102, p. 33) so far as concerns the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part

Keywords Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Form of appeal and period within which it must be brought — Pleading setting out the grounds lodged within the period prescribed — Condition of admissibility (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 60; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 49(1)) (see paras 24-29 ) Subject of the case Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 2355/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Parfums Rochas SAS and Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda. Operative part Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 April 2013 — Fercal v OHIM — Parfums Rochas (PATRIZIA ROCHA)

(Case T-360/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark PATRIZIA ROCHA — Earlier national word mark ROCHAS — Refusal to register by the Opposition Division — Inadmissibility of the action brought before the Board of Appeal — Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Form of appeal and period within which it must be brought — Pleading setting out the grounds lodged within the period prescribed — Condition of admissibility (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 60; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 49(1)) (see paras 24-29)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 2355/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Parfums Rochas SAS and Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 13 July 2011 (Case R 1454/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr José Luis Otero González and Apli-Agipa SAS in so far as it upholds Apli-Agipa’s appeal and grants it registration of the Community word mark AGIPA in respect of the ‘photographs; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; paint brushes; office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks’ in Class 16 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — International Engine Intellectual Property Company v OHIM (PURE POWER)

(Case T-248/11)

‛Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark PURE POWER — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of 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 — 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 — Word mark PURE POWER (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 39, 40)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Trade mark made up of several elements — Possible for the competent authority to examine each of the elements making up the trade mark — Need to take account of the overall perception of the combination by the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 21)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2011 (Case R 2310/2010-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign PURE POWER as a Community trade mark.

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 16-18, 53)

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 QTA S. JOSÉ DE PERAMANCA and figurative marks VINHO PERA-MANCA TINTO, VINHO PERA-MANCA BRANCO and PÊRA-MANCA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21, 45, 61)

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 — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23-25)

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 — Weighting of the marks concerned — Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the conditions in which the goods or services are marketed (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 57)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 September 2011 (Case R 1797/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Fundação Eugénio de Almeida and Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal L da .

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal L da to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Fundação Eugénio de Almeida for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Registration procedure — Publication of the application — Measure not guaranteeing registration of the trade mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 37 and 39(2)) (see para. 24)

2. 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 para. 28)

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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 35, 36)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of sign or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a service — Word mark Matrix-Energetics (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 54-59)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 1848/2010-4) concerning the application for registration of the word sign Matrix-Energetics as a Community word mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Günter Heede to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2013 — ClientEarth and PAN Europe v EFSA

(Case T‑214/11)

‛Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Names of experts who submitted comments on a guidance document relating to the scientific documents to be included in applications for authorisation to place plant protection products and the active substances contained in those products on the market — Refusal of access — Exception concerning protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Obligation to state reasons’

1. Judicial proceedings — Decision or regulation replacing the contested measure in the course of proceedings — New factor — Extension of the initial pleadings (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2)) (see para. 33)

2. Institutions of the European Union — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual — Scope — Obligation to assess in conformity with EU legislation on the protection of personal data — Full applicability of the provisions of Regulation No 45/2001 for any request for access to documents containing personal data (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 45/2001, Art. 8, and No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b)) (see paras 39, 40)

3. Approximation of laws — Protection of natural persons in relation to the processing of personal data — Processing of those data by EU institutions and bodies — Information enabling identification of persons submitting observations on a guidance document — Personal data — Application for access to that information under Regulation No 1049/2001 — Obligation to establish the need to transfer those data (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 45/2001, Arts 2(a), 5(b) and 8(b), and No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b)) (see paras 46, 64)

4. Institutions of the European Union — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see paras 62, 63)

Re:

APPLICATION, initially, for annulment of the EFSA decision of 10 February 2011 refusing an application for access, under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), to certain working documents relating to a guidance document, prepared by EFSA, for the benefit of applicants for authorisation to place plant protection products on the market and, subsequently, for annulment of EFSA’s decision of 12 December 2011 withdrawing the earlier decision and granting the applicants access to all the information requested, except for the names of the external experts who made certain comments on the draft guidance document.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;