ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 February 2015 — IOIP Holdings v OHIM (GLISTEN)

(Case T‑648/13)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark GLISTEN — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Direction issued to the Office — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 9)

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 — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 14)

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 15, 16)

4. 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 para. 17)

5. 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 — Word mark GLISTEN (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 18-20, 24)

6. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality (see para. 27)

7. 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; Council Directive No 89/104) (see para. 31)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 1028/2013-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign GLISTEN as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 March 2015 — Three-N-Products v OHIM — Munindra (PRANAYUR)

(Case T‑543/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PRANAYUR — Earlier Community word mark AYUR and earlier Community figurative marks Ayur, Ayur Naturals Herbals and Aanb — 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 paras 22-24)

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 PRANAYUR — Word mark AYUR and figurative marks Ayur, Ayur Naturals Herbals and Aanb (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 38, 39)

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 — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 28, 32, 33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2013 (Case R 638/2012‑4) relating to opposition proceedings between Three-N-Products Private Ltd and Munindra Holding BV.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 February 2015 —

Bayer Intellectual Property v OHIM — Interhygiene (INTERFACE)

(Case T‑227/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark INTERFACE — Earlier Community word mark Interfog — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identity of the goods — 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 14-17, 50, 55)

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 23, 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 — Word marks INTERFACE and Interfog (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 36-49, 53-55)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29-31)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2013 (Case R 1688/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Interhygiene GmbH and Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

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

Silicium España Laboratorios v OHIM — LLR-G5 (LLRG5)

(Case T‑306/13)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark ‘LLRG5’ — Absolute ground for refusal — Bad faith on the part of the Community trade mark proprietor — Article 52(1)(b) 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2) and (3)) (see para. 20)

2. 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 — Taking account of all the relevant factors existing at the time of filing the application for registration (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(2), and Art. 52(1)(b)) (see para. 22)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Applicant in bad faith at the time of lodging the trade mark application — Proof of bad faith — Probative value of the evidence — Criteria for assessment — Solemn declarations (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 52(1)(b), and 78(1)(f)) (see paras 27-29, op. part 1, 2)

4. 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 LLRG5 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see para. 30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2013 (Case R 383/2012‑1), relating to invalidity proceedings between LLR-G5 Ltd and Silicium España Laboratorios, SL.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Diseños Mireia (M)

(Case T‑662/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark M — Earlier Community word mark dm — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — No 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 paras 14, 15, 58)

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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 27)

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 — Comparison between the signs concerned (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 46-49)

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 — Similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 45)

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 — Figurative mark M and word mark dm (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50, 54, 61)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 911/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and Diseños Mireia, SL.

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 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 21-23)

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 — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 24)

3. 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 — Neologism consisting of elements descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services concerned — Whether included where the nature of the combination is not unusual (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 25, 36)

4. 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 — Word mark INFOSECURITY (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 37, 41, 49-51)

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 73) (see paras 45, 46)

6. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Exception — Distinctive character acquired through use — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(3)) (see paras 67-71, 94)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2013 (Case R 1544/2012-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign INFOSECURITY as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Reed Exhibitions Ltd to pay the costs.
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 — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 10, 11)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark MIGHTY BRIGHT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 12, 25)

3. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 33)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (Case R 2038/2012-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MIGHTY BRIGHT as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Gold Crest LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 October 2015 —

Verus v OHIM — Joie International (MIRUS)

(Case T‑576/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MIRUS — Earlier national word mark MIRUS — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(a) and (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 29, 30, 47, 51)

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 MIRUS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36-39, 41-45, 48)

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 — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 August 2013 (Case R 715/2012-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Verus Eood and Joie International Co., Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 November 2015 —

Giant (China) v Council

(Case T‑425/13)

‛Dumping — Imports of bicycles originating in China — Interim review — Article 9(5) and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Individual treatment — Non-cooperation — Necessary information — Facts available — Related companies — Circumvention’

1. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Fixing of anti-dumping duties — Individual treatment of exporting undertakings from a non-market economy country — Grant to exporters not having obtained the status of undertaking operating in a market economy — Lawfulness — Conditions (Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Art. 9(5)) (see paras 47, 81)

2. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Dumping margin — Determination of the export price — Recourse to a constructed export price — Adjustments — Account taken of existing relations between a producer-exporter called into question and other companies established in the exporting country (Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Art. 2(8) to (10)) (see paras 57-60)

3. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Course of the investigation — Use of the information available where the undertaking refuses cooperation — Conditions — Refusal of access to the necessary information — Requirement not met (Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Art. 18(1)) (see paras 61-70)

4. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Course of the investigation — Use of the information available where the undertaking refuses cooperation — Conditions — False or misleading information — Requirement not met (Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Art. 18(1)) (see paras 71-76)

5. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Fixing of anti-dumping duties — Individual treatment of exporting undertakings from a non-market economy country — Refusal to impose an individual anti-dumping duty — Risk of circumvention — Requirement not met (Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Art. 9(5)) (see paras 83-89)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 of 29 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 17).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 of 29 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 so far as it concerns Giant (China) Co. Ltd;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of Giant (China) and to bear its own costs;
7.

Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Fixing of anti-dumping duties — Obligation to impose individual duties on each supplier — Scope — Interpretation in the light of the 1994 GATT Anti-Dumping Agreement — Imposition of individual duties on sampled exporters or producers who cooperated with the investigation (Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, ‘Anti-Dumping Agreement of 1994’, Arts 6.10 and 9.2; Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Arts 9(5), and 17(1) and (3)) (see paras 142-149, 156-160)
For the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection to be complied with, and also, in this instance, for the principle of good administration to be observed, first, the competent EU authority must (i) disclose to the person concerned the summary of reasons provided by the Sanctions Committee which is the basis for listing or maintaining that person’s name on the list at issue, (ii) enable him effectively to make known his observations on that subject, and (iii) examine, carefully and impartially, whether the reasons alleged are well founded, in the light of the observations presented by that person and any exculpatory evidence that may be produced by him.

Respect for those rights and observance of that principle implies that, in the event of a legal challenge, the Courts of the European Union are to review, in the light of the information and evidence which have been disclosed inter alia whether the reasons relied on in the summary of reasons provided by the Sanctions Committee are sufficiently detailed and specific and, where appropriate, whether the accuracy of the facts relating to the reason concerned has been established in the light of the matters communicated to him.

By contrast, the fact that the competent EU authority does not make accessible to the person concerned and, subsequently, to the Courts of the European Union information or evidence which is in the sole possession of the Sanctions Committee or the Member of the United Nations (UN) concerned and which relates to the summary of reasons underpinning the decision at issue, cannot, as such, justify a finding that those rights and that principle have been infringed.

However, in such a situation, the Courts of the European Union, which are called upon to review whether the reasons contained in the summary provided by the Sanctions Committee are well founded in fact, taking into consideration any observations and exculpatory evidence produced by the person concerned and the response of the competent EU authority to those observations, will not have available to it supplementary information or evidence. Consequently, if it is impossible for the Courts to find that those reasons are well founded, those reasons cannot be relied on as the basis for the contested listing decision.

(see paras 70-72)
1.

Agriculture—Common agricultural policy—EAFRD financing—Support for rural development—Eligibility of operations and expenses—Reductions and exclusions—Obligation on the Member States to organise an effective system of administrative and on-site inspections—Possibility to run the inspections at the same time—Conditions—Inspections carried out for the purposes of determining the animal density rate covered by way of compensatory payments paid to farmers located in areas with natural handicaps—Requirement to show that the specific characteristics of both types of inspections are taken into account (Commission Regulation No 1975/2006, Arts 5(2), 10(2) and 12) (see paras 55, 62-64, 68)