ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
71

It must be recalled, in this connection, that the purpose of the obligation to state the reasons for an act adversely affecting a person, as provided for by the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and, more particularly in the present case, by Article 24(3) of Decision 2010/413, Article 15(3) of Regulation No 423/2007, Article 36(3) of Regulation No 961/2010 and Article 46(3) of Regulation No 267/2012, is, first, to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to make it possible to determine whether the measure is well founded or whether it is vitiated by an error which may permit its validity to be contested before the Courts of the European Union and, secondly, to enable the latter to review the lawfulness of that measure. The obligation to state reasons thus laid down constitutes an essential principle of European Union law which may be derogated from only for compelling reasons. The statement of reasons must, therefore, in principle be notified to the person concerned at the same time as the act adversely affecting him, for a failure to state the reasons cannot be remedied by the fact that the person concerned learns the reasons for the act during the proceedings before the Courts of the European Union (see, to that effect, Case T-390/08 Bank Melli Iran v Council [2009] ECR II-3967, paragraph 80 and the case-law cited).
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 17, 18, 39)
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 identical or similar earlier mark well known in a Member State — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark Caffè KIMBO and mark BIMBO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b), and (2)(c)) (see paras 25, 55, 58, 59)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 26)

3. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal to a Board of Appeal — Competence of the Boards of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 64(1)) (see paras 38, 39)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see para. 45)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 May 2012 (Case R 1017/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Bimbo, SA and Café do Brasil SpA.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bimbo SA to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2013 — Electric Bike World v OHIM — Brunswick (LIFECYCLE)

(Case T-379/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark LIFECYCLE — Earlier national word mark LIFECYCLE — Partial refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation 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 21, 22)

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 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. 23)

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 LIFECYCLE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 57-59)

4. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 30)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the products or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)) (see para. 31)

6. 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 para. 50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 May 2012 (Case R 2308/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Brunswick Corp. and Electric Bike World Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 para. 47)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 December 2013 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v OHIM (VALORES DE FUTURO)

(Case T‑428/12)

‛Community trade mark — Application for community word mark VALORES DE FUTURO — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 17, 18)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 19)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a service — Word mark VALORES DE FUTURO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 23, 24, 27-33, 50, 53-55)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 44-46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 July 2012 (Case R 2299/2011-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign VALORES DE FUTURO 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, A rt. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 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 — Word mark IBSolution and figurative mark IBS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-21, 39, 45, 51-53, 55, 56)

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 22-27)

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 — Possibility of a similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 32)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 57, 58)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 September 2012 (Case R 771/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between IBS AB and IBSolution GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders IBSolution GmbH to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — Optilingua v OHIM — Esposito (ALPHATRAD)

(Case T‑538/12)

‛Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community figurative mark — Genuine use of the mark — Extent of the use — Second subparagraph of Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. 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 — Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before OHIM bodies — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 19)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), second para., (a), and 51(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Rules 22(3), and 40(5)) (see paras 27-29, 32, 37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2012 (Case R 444/2011-1) relating to revocation proceedings between Mr Michele Esposito and Optilingua Holding SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Optilingua Holding SA to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — Optilingua v OHIM — Esposito (ALPHATRAD)

(Case T‑538/12)

‛Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community figurative mark — Genuine use of the mark — Extent of the use — Second subparagraph of Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. 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 — Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before OHIM bodies — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 19)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), second para., (a), and 51(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Rules 22(3), and 40(5)) (see paras 27-29, 32, 37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2012 (Case R 444/2011-1) relating to revocation proceedings between Mr Michele Esposito and Optilingua Holding SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 January 2014 — SICOM v Commission

(Case T‑279/12)

‛Arbitration clause — Food aid — Supply of colza oil to Guinea — Non-performance of the contract — Limitation period’

1. Judicial proceedings — Absolute bar to proceeding — To be considered of the Court’s own motion — Limitation period — Expiry not constituting an absolute bar to proceeding (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 113) (see para. 25)

2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Food aid — Implementation — Delivery of goods — Payment to the supplier — Commission operating a retention for non-performance of the contract — Challenge by the supplier — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run (Commission Regulation No 2519/97, Art. 18(5) to (7)) (see paras 29, 30, 35, 38, 39)

Re:

APPLICATION under an arbitration clause seeking an order that the Commission pay the applicant a sum corresponding to penalties imposed in relation to quantities not delivered and delays in supply, deducted by the Commission from the final amount paid to the applicant for the delivery of refined colza oil for the benefit of the Republic of Guinea, in the context of a food aid operation carried out pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 664/2001 of 2 April 2001 on the supply of vegetable oil as food aid (OJ 2001 L 93, p. 3).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders SICOM Srl — Società industriale per il confezionamento degli olii meridionale to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 January 2014 — SICOM v Commission

(Case T‑279/12)

‛Arbitration clause — Food aid — Supply of colza oil to Guinea — Non-performance of the contract — Limitation period’

1. Judicial proceedings — Absolute bar to proceeding — To be considered of the Court’s own motion — Limitation period — Expiry not constituting an absolute bar to proceeding (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 113) (see para. 25)

2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Food aid — Implementation — Delivery of goods — Payment to the supplier — Commission operating a retention for non-performance of the contract — Challenge by the supplier — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run (Commission Regulation No 2519/97, Art. 18(5) to (7)) (see paras 29, 30, 35, 38, 39)

Re:

APPLICATION under an arbitration clause seeking an order that the Commission pay the applicant a sum corresponding to penalties imposed in relation to quantities not delivered and delays in supply, deducted by the Commission from the final amount paid to the applicant for the delivery of refined colza oil for the benefit of the Republic of Guinea, in the context of a food aid operation carried out pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 664/2001 of 2 April 2001 on the supply of vegetable oil as food aid (OJ 2001 L 93, p. 3).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Oro Clean Chemie v OHIM — Merz Pharma (PROSEPT)

(Case T‑284/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PROSEPT — Earlier national word mark Pursept — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rights of defence — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties — No obligation on OHIM to accept points put forward by a party which have not been challenged by the other party (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 17)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence) (see para. 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 64)

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 PROSEPT and Pursept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 46, 63, 65-67)

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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 69)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2012 (Case R 1053/2011‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA and Oro Clean Chemie AG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 21)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark Passion to Perform (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 45-48)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character of a sign — 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. 38)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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. 59)

5. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 65)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2012 (Case R 2233/2011‑4) concerning an application for registration of word sign Passion to Perform as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deutsche Bank AG to pay the costs.
Although a decision of the Commission which fits into a well-established line of decisions may be reasoned in a summary manner, for example by a reference to those decisions, the Commission must, if a decision goes appreciably further than the previous decisions, give an account of its reasoning. Review of the observance of the guarantees conferred by the European Union legal order in administrative procedures, such as the Commission’s obligation to give an adequate statement of reasons, is even more important in the procedure under Article 114(4) TFEU since the right to be heard does not apply to that procedure.

The statement of the reasons for a measure must be logical and contain no internal inconsistency that would prevent a proper understanding of the reasons underlying the measure. A contradiction in the statement of the reasons on which a decision is based constitutes a breach of the obligation laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU such as to affect the validity of the measure in question if it is established that, as a result of that contradiction, the addressee of the measure is not in a position to ascertain, wholly or in part, the real reasons for the decision and, as a result, the operative part of the decision is, wholly or in part, devoid of any legal justification.

(see paras 47-50)