ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 March 2015 —

Novomatic v OHIM — Berentzen Mally Marketing plus Services (BLACK JACK TM)

(Case T‑257/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition Proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BLACK JACK TM — Earlier Community word and figurative marks BLACK TRACK — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — 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 para. 17)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 25)

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 paras 28, 29)

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 BLACK JACK TM — Word and figurative marks BLACK TRACK (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42-46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 February 2014 (Case R 329/2012‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between Berentzen Mally Marketing plus Services GmbH and Novomatic AG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 February 2014 (Case R 329/2012‑4);
Such support may result, inter alia, from capital links connecting an undertaking to the Iranian State, with the consequence that the latter ultimately benefits from the dividends and capital gains deriving from the activities carried out by that undertaking.

With regard to restrictive measures against Iran, such as the freezing of funds of entities providing support to the Iranian Government, the criterion of financial support to that government relates not to every form of support, but only to forms of support which, by their quantitative or qualitative significance, contribute to the pursuit of Iran’s nuclear activities.

The definition of ‘logistics’ referred to in Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413 and Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation No 267/2012 must be regarded as not being limited to the activities of transporting goods or persons. That term is commonly understood as including any activity that relates to the organisation and implementation of a complex operation or process. Logistics is thus a transversal concept which may include different types of operations, such as the supply of raw materials, materials management, the delivery of goods or even handling. Accordingly, it is necessary to regard as logistical support within the meaning of the abovementioned provisions any activity which — even though it has, in itself, no direct or indirect link with nuclear proliferation — is nevertheless likely, by its quantitative and qualitative significance, to favour nuclear proliferation by allowing the Iranian Government to meet specific logistical needs, as in the present case in the oil and gas sector, which generates substantial revenue for that government.

Engineering, construction and maintenance activities of an entity active in the engineering, construction and installation of infrastructure, on land and at sea, for oil and gas projects, which presents itself as the leading Iranian contractor in the field of the construction and installation of offshore infrastructures, are indispensable to the proper functioning of Iran’s oil and gas industry. Without drilling, extraction and transportation installations, in particular oil and gas pipelines, that industry cannot operate. That entity’s installations and activities, by their qualitative and quantitative significance, are therefore required to meet the needs of the oil and gas sector in Iran, which is controlled by the Iranian Government through various State-owned undertakings. Such logistical support provided by that entity therefore fulfils the criterion laid down in Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413 and Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation No 267/2012, since, according to recital 22 of Decision 2010/413 and recital 8 of Decision 2012/35, Iran derives substantial revenues from its energy sector, which allow it to fund its proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities.

The Council therefore commits no error of assessment by including the name of such an entity in the lists of sanctioned persons and entities on the ground that it provides logistical support to the Iranian Government.

(see paras 53-55)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2015 —

Urb Rulmenti Suceava v OHIM — Adiguzel (URB)

(Case T‑635/14)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community trade mark URB — Application for the earlier national mark URB, earlier national collective word mark URB, earlier national collective figurative mark URB and earlier international figurative marks URB — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — No authorisation by the proprietor of the earlier marks — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 — No infringement of Articles 22(3) and 72(1) of Regulation No 207/2009’

Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Applicant in bad faith when lodging the trade mark application — Criteria for assessment — Taking account of all the relevant factors existing at the time of filing the application for registration (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paras 30-34, 45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2014 (Case R 1974/2013‑4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA and Mr Harun Adiguzel.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA to pay the costs;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2015 —

Best-Lock (Europe) v OHIM — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure)

(Case T‑395/14)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a toy figure — Absolute grounds for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(i) and (ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Procedure — 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 — Reference to annexes as a whole — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 18)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Repetition, wholly or in part, of the arguments already invoked before OHIM — Lawfulness (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 20)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Signs which consist exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Concept — Presence of non-essential characteristics with no technical function — Not relevant to the ground for refusal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see para. 29)

4. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Three-dimensional mark consisting in the shape of a of a toy figure (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see paras 31-35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2014 (Case R 1695/2013‑4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd and Lego Juris A/S.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see paras 14, 15)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Interpretation in the light of EU law — Existence of an earlier trade mark as referred to in Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Conditions — Assessment by reference to the criteria determined by the national law governing the sign relied on (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(4), and 53(1)(c)) (see paras 23, 24)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Claim for invalidity based on the existence of the protected geographical indication — Applicable provisions — Combined application of Article 13 of Regulation No 510/2006 and of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulations No 510/2006, Art. 13, and No 207/2009, Arts 8(4), and 53(1)(c)) (see paras 34-36, 47)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2014 (Case R 1200/2013-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between the Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia and Accelerate s.a.l.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 27 March 2014 (Case R 1200/2013-5) in so far as it rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity;

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 October 2015 —

I Castellani v OHIM — Chomarat (Representation of a circle)

(Case T‑137/14)

‛Community trade mark — Revocation procedure — Figurative mark representing a circle — Genuine use of a mark — Extent of use — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Shape which differs by elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark — Rights of the defence — Article 75 of Regulation 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. 15)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal brought against a decision of a unit of the Office ruling at first instance and referred to the Board of Appeal — Functional continuity between those two bodies — Examination of the appeal by the Board of Appeal — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 64(1)) (see paras 23, 24)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), and 51(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 22(3), and 40(5)) (see paras 32-38)

4. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Figurative mark representing a circle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 46-49, 51-54)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2013 (Case R 1001/2012-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Compagnie Chomarat and I Castellani Srl.

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 — Signs of which a trade mark may consist — Condition — Distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 4) (see para. 18)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity –Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 51(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 22(3), and 40(5)) (see paras 21-23, 27-29)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Registered mark used solely as an element of a composite mark or in combination with another mark — Three-dimensional mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)(a)) (see paras 30-37)

4. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity –Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Three-dimensional mark constituted by the form of an oven used in conjunction with the word element ‘bullerjan’ (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 38-42)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2014 (Case R 927/2013-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Mr Toni Klement and Bullerjan GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Toni Klement to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 October 2015 —

Société des produits Nestlé v OHIM (NOURISHING PERSONAL HEALTH)

(Case T‑336/14)

‛Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark NOURISHING PERSONAL HEALTH — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation on OHIM to examine the facts of its own motion — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. 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. 11)

2. 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. 17)

3. 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 28-30)

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 — Word mark NOURISHING PERSONAL HEALTH (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 38-41)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2014 (Case R 149/2013-4) concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word mark NOURISHING PERSONAL HEALTH.

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 55)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 —

Société des produits Nestlé v OHIM — Terapia (ALETE)

(Case T‑544/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ALETE — Earlier national word mark ALETA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal to a Board of Appeal — Stay of proceedings — Conditions (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 20(7)(c) and 50(1)) (see paras 24-27)

2. 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. 46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1128/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Terapia SA and Société des produits Nestlé SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1128/2013-4);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2015 — Secolux v Commission

(Case T‑90/14)

‛Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Safety checks — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Non-contractual liability’

1. EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Irregularity of the administrative procedure — Effects — Annulment of the contested decision — Conditions (see para. 34)

2. EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Award of contracts — Most economically advantageous tender — Award criteria — Observance of the principle of equal treatment of tenderers and of the principle of transparency (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 110(2); Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Art. 149(1) to (3)) (see paras 37, 38)

3. EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Abnormally low offer — Obligation on the awarding authority to implement an inter partes verification procedure — Scope — Award of the contract to the economically most advantageous offer (Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Arts 149(2), and 151(1)) (see paras 60-62)

4. EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Obligation to comply with the principle of equal treatment of tenderers — No need absolutely to neutralise all the advantages of the contracting tenderer in place (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 102(1)) (see paras 74-77)

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 93-95)

Re:

First, application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 3 December 2013 rejecting the tenders submitted by the applicant in the context of a call for tenders concerning the provision of safety checks services and, secondly, a claim for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2015 —

Sweden v Commission

(Case T‑521/14)

‛Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Biocidal products — Action for failure to act — Specification of the scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties — Failure by the Commission to adopt delegated acts — Duty to act’

1. Actions for failure to act — Failure to act — Concept — No action taken — Measure not considered satisfactory — Not included (Art. 265 TFEU) (see paras 32, 33, 75)

2. Actions for failure to act — Position taken within the meaning of Article 265, second para., TFEU before the action brought — Concept — Letter confirming the analysis of the questions raised in the call to take action — Not included (Art. 265, second para., TFEU) (see paras 38, 40, 42-44, 46)

3. Actions for failure to act — Member States or institutions — Actionable omissions — Failure to adopt delegated acts concerning specification of the scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties — Admissibility (Art. 265 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 528/2012, Art. 5(3), first para.) (see paras 50, 53, 57, 58, 70)

Re:

APPLICATION for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt delegated acts concerning the scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that the European Commission, by failing to adopt delegated acts to specify scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Kingdom of Sweden;