ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Mad Catz Interactive (Representation of a black square with four white lines)

(Case T‑567/15)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark representing a black square with four white lines — Earlier EU figurative mark representing three claws positioned vertically — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 17, 18, 35)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 representing a black square with four white lines — Figurative mark representing three claws positioned vertically (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-22, 34, 54)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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. 23)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 — High distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 39, 40)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 58)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2015 (Case R 2368/2014-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Mad Catz Interactive.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 September 2016 —

Satkirit Holdings v EUIPO — Advanced Mailing Solutions (luvo)

(Case T‑449/15)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark luvo — Earlier EU work mark luvo — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 17, 18, 53)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 luvo and luvo (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21-25, 51, 52, 54, 55)

3. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Facts, evidence and observations submitted in support of the opposition — Opportunity for the opposing party to adduce evidence in support of the opposition (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 15(2)(c), and (3)(b), and 19(1)) (see paras 33, 35)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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. 38)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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. 41)

6. EU 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 paras 45, 49)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2015 (Case R 877/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Advanced Mailing Solutions and Satkirit Holdings.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 11 October 2016 — Guccio Gucci v EUIPO — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of four interlocking Gs)

(Case T‑461/15)

‛EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark representing four interlocking Gs — Earlier EU, national and international figurative marks G — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 17, 19)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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. 18)

3. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark representing four interlocking Gs and figurative marks G (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29-36)

4. EU 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 paras 40, 41)

5. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of non-discrimination — Irrelevant (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 43)

6. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 44)

7. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Similarity of the marks concerned — Degree of similarity required (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b), and (5)) (see paras 47-49)

8. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Litigation concerning intellectual property rights — Recoverable costs — Costs necessarily incurred by the parties for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 190(2)) (see para. 53)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 May 2015 (Case R 2049/2014-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Guccio Gucci and Guess? IP Holder.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 20 September 2016 —

Excalibur City v EUIPO — Ferrero (MERLIN’S KINDERWELT)

(Case T‑566/15)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of an EU figurative mark MERLIN’S KINDERWELT — Earlier national word mark KINDER — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 MERLIN’S KINDERWELT and word mark KINDER (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 62-67)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 — Assessment of the distinctiveness of an element composing a trade mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 25-27)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 — Elements of a trade mark having a descriptive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 28)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 July 2015 (Case R 1617/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero and Excalibur City.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Alters the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 July 2015 (Case R 1617/2014-1) in such a way as to hold that the appeal brought by Excalibur City s.r.o. before the Board of Appeal is well founded and, consequently, that the opposition must be rejected;

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Excalibur City;
5.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Overlap between the scope of the grounds for refusal set out in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see para. 35)
Judgment of the General Court (Single Judge) of 28 September 2016 —

Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO (WAVE 2 PAY and WAVE TO PAY)

(Joined Cases T‑129/15 and T‑130/15)

‛EU trade mark — Application for EU word marks WAVE 2 PAY and WAVE TO PAY — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 20, 21)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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. 22)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word marks WAVE 2 PAY and WAVE TO PAY (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23, 25-27, 34)

4. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice (see paras 32, 33)

5. EU 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. 40)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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, first sentence) (see para. 41)

Re:

ACTION brought against two decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2015 (Cases, respectively, R 1857/2014-5 and R 1864/2014-5), concerning two applications for registration of the word signs, respectively, WAVE 2 PAY and WAVE TO PAY as EU trade marks.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;
As provided in the first sentence of Article 92(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the EU trade mark, natural or legal persons having their domicile, or principal place of business or a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the European Union may be represented before EUIPO by an employee.

However, mere extracts from a website along with a few photographs are not sufficient, per se, and in the absence of any other particulars, to demonstrate the existence of a real and effective commercial establishment in the European Union.

The concept of a branch implies a place of business which has the appearance of permanency, such as the extension of a parent body, has a management and is materially equipped to negotiate business with third parties so that the latter, although knowing that there will, if necessary, be a legal link with the parent body, the head office of which is abroad, do not have to deal directly with such parent body but may transact business at the place of business constituting the extension.

(see paras 21, 29, 30)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 February 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EMA

(Case T‑441/15)

(Arbitration clause — Multiple framework contract involving the ‘cascade’ system EMA/2012/10/ICT — External service provision for software applications — Request to provide services addressed to the applicants — Rejection of the candidates proposed by the applicants — Proportionality — Reclassification in part of the action — Non-contractual liability)

1. Actions for annulment—Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute—Application for annulment of a decision rejecting candidates proposed in the context of a framework contract—No jurisdiction of the EU judicature—Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU) (see paras 18-27)

2. Actions for annulment—Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute—Reclassification of the action—Conditions (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU) (see paras 28, 29)

3. EU law—Principles—Proportionality—Scope—Compliance by the EU institutions in connection with measures forming part of a contractual context (Art. 5(4) TEU) (see paras 37, 38)

4. Non-contractual liability—Conditions—Infringement of a contractual provision—Not included (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 55)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the EMA’s decision of 4 June 2015, notified to the applicants by means of an e-mail from the IT Resource Manager, rejecting two of the candidates whom the applicants had proposed in response to the request for services SC001, in the context of the ΕΜΑ/2012/10/ICT framework-agreement, and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU and asking for compensation for the harm that the applicants had allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
For an earlier trade mark to be afforded the broader protection under Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, a number of conditions must be satisfied. First, the earlier trade mark and the mark applied for must be identical or similar. Secondly, the earlier trade mark must have a reputation in the European Union, in the case of an earlier EU trade mark, or in the Member State concerned, in the case of an earlier national trade mark. Thirdly, the use without due cause of the mark applied for must lead to the risk that unfair advantage might be taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark or that it might be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark. As those conditions are cumulative, failure to satisfy one of them is sufficient to render that provision inapplicable.

As regards the third of the conditions for applying Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, it must be borne in mind that detriment to the distinctive character of the earlier mark, a concept also referred to as ‘the risk of dilution’, is usually established where the use of the mark applied for would have the effect that the earlier mark would no longer be capable of arousing immediate association with the goods for which it is registered and used.

(see paras 29, 30)
EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Pleas in law not set out in the application—General reference to other documents—Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see para. 13)
EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Obligation to disclose individual and specific grounds for the decisions adopted — Scope

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Regulations No 267/2012 and 2015/549; Council Decision 2015/556/CFSP)

(see para. 43)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 28 March 2017 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T‑733/15)

(Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that a State has failed to fulfil its obligations — Penalty payment — Decision quantifying the penalty payment — Repeal of the contested national measure — Date on which the infringement was brought to an end)

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court of Justice establishing a failure to fulfil the obligation to comply with a judgment and imposing a penalty payment — Commission’s assessment of the measures adopted by the Member State to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice — Limits — Obligation of sincere cooperation (Arts 4(3) TEU, 258 TFEU and 260(2) TFEU) (see paras 35-37)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment — Pecuniary penalties — Periodic penalty payment — Imposition of a penalty payment — Condition — Failure to comply continuing up to the time of the Court’s examination of the facts (Arts 4(3) TEU, 258 TFEU and 260(2) TFEU) (see paras 48, 54, 57)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2015)4178538 of 8 October 2015 requesting payment by the Portuguese Republic of the sum of EUR 580000, corresponding to the quantified penalty payment, for the period from 25 June to 21 August 2014, in compliance with the judgment of 25 June 2014, Commission v Portugal (C‑76/13, not published, EU:C:2014:2029).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 July 2017 —

Basic Net v EUIPO (Representation of three vertical stripes)

(Case T‑612/15)

(European Union trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing three vertical stripes — Absolute ground for refusal — Not distinctive — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

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

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted by a colour or combination of colours (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19-22, 42, 43)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark representing three vertical stripes (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 65, 76)

4. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice (see paras 72-74)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks which are devoid of distinctive character, descriptive or commonplace — Exception — Distinctive character acquired through use — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(3)) (see paras 80-86)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 August 2015 (Case R 2845/2014-1) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing three vertical stripes as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;