ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 15, 16, 23)

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 marks CALDEA and BALEA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 24, 25, 28, 52, 53, 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 29)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2012 (Case R 2432/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and Semtee.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Following a judgment annulling a measure, where the implementation of the judgment presents particular difficulties, the institution concerned may satisfy the obligation arising from Article 266 TFEU by taking such decisions as will provide due compensation for the damage which the person concerned has suffered as a result of the decision which has been annulled.

In that regard, in an open competition organised in order to establish a reserve pool for recruitment where the tests have been invalidated, the organisation of a new test may, under certain conditions, provide the person concerned with due compensation for the illegality he has suffered, even if it does not eliminate the irregularity.

However, the direct inclusion of the person concerned on the reserve list would infringe not only the principles of equal treatment and objective marking and the competition notice, but also Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, which states that the purpose of any recruitment procedure is to secure for the institution the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity. It is true that there is no provision of the Staff Regulations which specifies the method for assessing candidates’ ability. The Staff Regulations do, however, lay down the method for recruiting officials. The second paragraph of Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations states that officials are to be recruited by ‘competitions on the basis either of qualifications or of tests, or of both qualifications and tests’, the procedure for which is laid down in Annex III of the Staff Regulations. It is thus expressly clear from Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, in combination with Article 29, that officials are to be recruited by means of competitions, under the conditions laid down in Annex III of the Staff Regulations, in order to select candidates with highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity.

(see paras 25, 29, 60, 64)

See:

T-84/91 Meskens v Parliament [1992] ECR II-2335, para. 80; T-91/95 De Nil and Impens v Council [2006] ECR-SC I-A-327 and II-959, para. 34
Case T‑61/13

Research and Production Company ‘Melt Water’ UAB

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

‛Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark NUEVA — Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed — Ambiguity in a language version — Uniform interpretation — Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Excusable error — Obligations of care and diligence’

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 21 May 2014

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Form of appeal and period within which it must be brought — To be brought in writing and within a period of two months — Payment of the appeal fee

See the text of the decision. (see para. 15)

All the language versions of a provision of EU law must be regarded as being equally authentic and, in principle, recognised as having the same weight, and this cannot vary according to, inter alia, the size of the population of the Member States using the language in question. The wording used in one language version of a provision of EU law cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision or be made to override the other language versions in that regard. Such an approach would be incompatible with the requirement that EU law be applied uniformly. First, the need for a uniform interpretation of EU law makes it impossible for the text of a provision to be considered in isolation but requires, in case of doubt, that it be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages. Second, the need for a uniform interpretation of EU law requires, in the case of divergence between the various language versions of a provision, that the provision in question be interpreted by reference to the general scheme and purpose of the rules of which it forms part. (see paras 20, 26-28)

Article 60 of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted uniformly as meaning that payment of the appeal fee is required in order for the appeal to be regarded as having been filed, with the result that that payment is linked to the filing of the notice of appeal and must be made, in the same way as that filing, within a period of two months following the date of notification of the decision under appeal. The period of four months following the date of notification of the decision applies solely to the lodging of the written statement setting out the grounds of appeal, and not to the payment of the appeal fee. That uniform interpretation, being based on the versions of that article existing in the other official languages of the European Union and on its general scheme and purpose, is the only one which is consistent with the principle of legal certainty. Compliance with procedural time-limits, particularly in relation to appeals, is a matter of public policy, and any interpretation other than that uniform interpretation is liable to undermine legal certainty. (see paras 31, 34)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September 2014 — Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine v OHIM — Miguel Torres (SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE)

(Case T‑605/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE — Earlier Community word mark VIÑA SOL — Relative ground for refusal — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons’

Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU — Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2013 (Case R 18/2013-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA, and Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine LLLP.

Operative part

The Court:

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 10 September 2013 (Case R 18/2013-2);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine LLLP;

3. Orders Miguel Torres, SA, to bear its own costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September 2014 — Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine v OHIM — Miguel Torres (SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE)

(Case T‑605/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE — Earlier Community word mark VIÑA SOL — Relative ground for refusal — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons’

Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU — Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2013 (Case R 18/2013-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA, and Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine LLLP.

Operative part

The Court:

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 10 September 2013 (Case R 18/2013-2);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine LLLP;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2014 —

Think Schuhwerk v OHIM — Müller (VOODOO)

(Case T‑50/13)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark VOODOO — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of descriptive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c)of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation 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 — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 18-20)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Word mark VOODOO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c), and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 22, 26-28, 33-35)

3. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 29)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 45-47)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 52)

6. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Applicant in bad faith at the time of lodging the trade mark application — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see para. 55)

7. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Applicant in bad faith at the time of lodging the trade mark application — Word mark VOODOO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paras 58-60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2012 (Case R 474/2012‑4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Think Schuhwerk GmbH and Mr Andreas Müller.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2014 —

Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller v OHIM (Original Eau de Cologne)

(Case T‑556/13)

‛Community trade mark — Application for the Community collective word mark Original Eau de Cologne — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) 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 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 paras 13, 14)

2. 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 — Word mark Original Eau de Cologne (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 18, 20-23, 31)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 August 2013 (Case R 2064/2012‑14) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Original Eau de Cologne 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 18, 19, 46)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks DODIE and DODOT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 26-29, 45, 49)

3. 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, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 62)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2012 (Case R 1949/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Arbora & Ausonia, SLU and Laboratoires Polive.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

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 31 October 2012 (Case R 1949/2011-2);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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 14 January 2015 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — V-Contact Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató (CAMEA)

(Case T‑195/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CAMEA — Earlier international word mark BALEA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 16, 18, 25)

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 marks CAMEA and BALEA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 22, 51, 57, 58)

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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 21)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Examination by the EU judicature — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2013 (Case R 452/2012-1) relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and V-Contact Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
1.

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 14)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2015 — Sabores de Navarra v OHIM — Frutas Solano (KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA)

(Case T‑46/13)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA — Earlier Community figurative mark Sabores de Navarra La Sabiduría del Sabor — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 15 and Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character of the mark’

1. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — 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 — Subject-matter and scope of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)(a)) (see paras 22, 36, 37)

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 23, 24)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — 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 — Figurative mark Sabores de Navarra La Sabiduría del Sabor (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)(a)) (see paras 41, 42)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 November 2012 (Joined Cases R 2542/2011-2 and R 2550/2011-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Sabores de Navarra, AIE and Frutas Solano, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Legal basis of an action — Choice for the applicant and not the EU judicature (see para. 48)

2. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Reclassification of the action — Conditions (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c), and (5a)) (see paras 50-56, 58, 59)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures producing binding legal effects — Measures altering the applicant’s legal situation — Notification in the early warning system for the use of Commission and executive agency cashiers — Action by an entity concerned by that notification — Admissibility (Art. 263 TFEU; Commission Decision 2008/969) (see para. 76)

4. Actions for damages — Autonomy in relation to the action for annulment — Limits — Action seeking the withdrawal of an individual decision which has become definitive — Inadmissibility (Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 78, 79)

5. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 113-115)

6. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Discretion of the institution when adopting the measure — Necessary taking into consideration when examining liability (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 116-118)

Subject of the case

Re:

First, action for annulment of the Commission’s letter by which it suspended the payments under grant agreement No 246910, relating to the FutureNEM project, and of financial audit report 11-INFS-025, on the basis of which it adopted that measure, and, secondly, action for damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a consequence of the Commission’s conduct, up to a maximum of EUR 5 854 264, without prejudice to the damages which may be assessed in the course of the present proceedings as well as interest accrued.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Rose Vision, SL and Mr Julián Seseña to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 February 2015 — Vita Phone v OHIM (LIFEDATA)

(Case T‑318/13)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark LIFEDATA — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of specific assessment — Duty to state reasons’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of the distinctiveness — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark LIFEDATA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 22, 27, 34)

3. 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 37, 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. 40)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the goods 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) (see para. 47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2013 (Case R 1072/2012-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark LIFEDATA as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;