ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 — Streng v OHIM — Gismondi (PARAMETRICA)

(Case T‑495/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PARAMETRICA — Earlier national word mark parameta — Relative ground for refusal — Failure to produce evidence in the language of the opposition proceedings — Rule 19(2) and (3) and Rule 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95’

Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Failure to produce, within the period prescribed, the translation of the certificate of registration of the earlier mark — Effect on the proceedings before the Opposition Division (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 19(1) to (3), and 98(1)) (see paras 24-27)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2011 (Case R 1348/2010‑4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Michael Streng and Mr Fulvio Gismondi.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Michael Streng to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 — Streng v OHIM — Gismondi (PARAMETRICA)

(Case T‑495/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PARAMETRICA — Earlier national word mark parameta — Relative ground for refusal — Failure to produce evidence in the language of the opposition proceedings — Rule 19(2) and (3) and Rule 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95’

Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Failure to produce, within the period prescribed, the translation of the certificate of registration of the earlier mark — Effect on the proceedings before the Opposition Division (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 19(1) to (3), and 98(1)) (see paras 24-27)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2011 (Case R 1348/2010‑4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Michael Streng and Mr Fulvio Gismondi.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2013 — Biotronik SE v OHIM — Cardios Sistemas (CARDIO MANAGER)

(Case T-416/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CARDIO MANAGER — Earlier national word mark CardioMessenger — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) 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 — Account taken by the General Court of evidence not previously raised before the departments of OHIM — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 19)

2. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 27-33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2011 (Case R 1156/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Biotronik SE & Co. KG and Cardios Sistemas Comercial e Industrial Ltda.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
8.

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Alternative criteria fixed by EU measures for the inclusion of an entity in the lists of persons and entities concerned by the restrictive measures — Sufficiency of reasoning based on only one of those criteria or only some of them (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, Art. 20(1)(b); Council Regulation No 961/2010, Art. 16(2), and No 267/2012, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 85-96)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 December 2014 — Novartis v OHIM — Dr Organic (BIOCERT)

(Case T‑605/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BIOCERT — Earlier national word mark BIOCEF — 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. 14)

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 — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26, 28, 29)

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 BIOCERT and BIOCEF (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30-32, 54-60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2011 (Case R 1030/2010-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Novartis AG and Dr Organic Ltd.

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 28 September 2011 (Case R 1030/2010-4);
In competition law, respect for the rights of the defence requires that the undertaking concerned must have been afforded the opportunity, during the administrative procedure, properly to make known its views on the truth and relevance of the facts and circumstances alleged and on the documents used by the Commission to support its claim that there has been an infringement of the Treaty. In that regard, the time-limit imposed on the undertaking to submit its observations must be compatible with respect for the rights of the defence.

Consequently, there is an infringement of defence rights and a Commission decision must thus be annulled, if the applicants have sufficiently demonstrated not that, without that procedural irregularity — that is to say, if they had had a reasonable amount of time to make their views known — the contested decision would have been different in substance, but that they would have been better able to defend themselves without that irregularity. The relevant time for that purpose is the time of the administrative procedure which led to the adoption of the contested decision.

(see paras 68, 71, 72, 77, 82)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2012 —

Süd-Chemie v OHIM — Byk-Cera (CERATIX)



(Case T-312/11)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CERATIX — Earlier national word mark CERATOFIX — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 16-24)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 1585/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Süd-Chemie AG and Byk-Cera BV.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
44

However, as the Board of Appeal correctly pointed out in paragraph 26 of the contested decision, in the present case the representation of a cow has an allusive character in relation to the goods at issue. In the present case, that element therefore has a weak distinctive character. The applicant disputes, at the stage of the reply, the Board of Appeal’s finding in this respect, in particular as regards the ‘sweets, drops, toffees’ covered by the earlier marks. Without there being any need to rule on the belated nature of the argument put forward by the applicant, it must be held that that argument is unfounded. As regards the goods covered by the trade mark application, the applicant has not put forward any specific argument capable of calling the Board of Appeal’s finding into question. As regards the goods covered by the earlier marks, which are more specifically the subject-matter of the applicant’s arguments, in addition to the fact that chocolate bars and chocolate products may be made by using milk or milk products, the description of the goods covered by those marks contains, specifically as regards the sweets, drops and toffees highlighted by the applicant in its written pleadings, the following information: ‘in particular made by using milk, cream and/or butter’. It follows that, contrary to what the applicant submits, in essence, in its written pleadings, the sweets, drops and toffees covered by the earlier mark may be made by using milk or milk products. That assessment is moreover borne out by a sworn declaration provided as an Annex to the application, in which it is stated that the toffees made by the applicant contain cream, butter and milk. Consequently, the Board of Appeal did not err in that regard. In the light of this finding, it is not necessary to ascertain whether the Board of Appeal erred in finding, on the basis of the evidence which the intervener put forward before OHIM, that consumers in the European Union, including Germany, are accustomed to encountering marks containing the representation of a cow in respect of goods in Class 30. Even if the Board of Appeal had erred in that regard, that would not affect the finding that, in the present case, the representation of a cow has an allusive character in relation to the goods at issue.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission

(Case T-12/12)

‛Medicinal products for human use — Marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Orphacol — Letter informing the applicant of the Commission’s intention to refuse authorisation — Application for a declaration of failure to act — Definition of position by the Commission — Inadmissibility — Application for annulment — Adoption of a new decision — No need to adjudicate’

1. Actions for failure to act — Institution called upon to act — Conditions — Clear and express request — No precise formal rules — Letter allowing the institution concerned to make a concrete examination of the content of the requested decision (Art. 265, second para., TFEU) (see paras 38, 40)

2. Actions for failure to act — Definition of position within the meaning of Article 265, second paragraph, TFEU before commencement of proceedings — Inadmissibility (Art. 265, second para., TFEU) (see paras 41-44)

3. Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for such an interest to exist at the stage of the bringing of the action and until the delivery of the court decision — Decision replacing the contested decision during the proceedings — Application devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate where applicant has no interest in an annulment (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 52-55)

Re:

APPLICATION for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in unlawfully failing to adopt a final decision in relation to the applicant’s application for a marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Orphacol, and, in the alternative, for annulment of the decision, allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 5 December 2011, not to grant that authorisation to the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for a declaration of failure to act as inadmissible;

2. Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment submitted in the alternative;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Laboratoires CTRS;
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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29-32)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 33)

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 — Figurative marks METRO and GRUPOMETROPOLIS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 38, 50, 51)

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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 46)

5. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Boards of Appeal — Classification as administration of the Office — No right of the parties to a fair ‘process’ (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 61 to 64) (see para. 54)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 2440/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Buzil-Werk Wagner v OHIM — Roca Sanitario (Roca)

(Case T-115/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Roca — Earlier national figurative mark ROCA and earlier international figurative mark Roca — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods — 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 — Word mark Roca — Figurative marks ROCA and Roca (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27-29, 46, 59, 65, 66, 68)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 34, 40, 67)

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. 48)

4. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties — Well-known facts taken into account (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 64)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2012 (Case R 1907/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Roca Sanitario, SA and Buzil-Werk Wagner GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — SFC Jardibric v OHIM — Aqua Center Europa (AQUA FLOW)

(Case T-417/12)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark AQUA FLOW — Earlier national figurative mark VAQUA FLOW — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Declaration of invalidity — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Limitation through acquiescence — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 54(2)) (see paras 19-21, 40)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Invalidity proceedings — Facts and evidence not submitted in support of the claim for invalidity within the time-limit — Account to be taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2)) (see para. 22)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 48, 74)

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 marks AQUA FLOW and VAQUA FLOW (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 51, 59, 63, 64, 69, 73, 75)

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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Complementary nature of the goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 52, 57)

6. 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 60, 70)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 July 2012 (Case R 2230/2010-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Aqua Center Europa, SA and SFC Jardibric.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Olive Line International v OHIM — Carapelli Firenze (Maestro de Oliva)

(Case T‑4/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark Maestro de Oliva — Earlier national word mark MAESTRO — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion — Articles 8(1)(b) and 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Subject-matter and material scope of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)(a)) (see paras 23‑25)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42, 43, 81)

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 — Figurative mark Maestro de Oliva and word mark MAESTRO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 45, 67, 73, 77, 80, 87‑89)

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 — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 47‑52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 September 2011 (Case R 1612/2010‑2), concerning an opposition procedure between Carapelli Firenze SpA and Olive Line International, SL.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 18-20)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Signs capable of constituting a mark — Colours or combinations of colours — Condition — Distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b), and (3)) (see paras 24-30)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 260/2011-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Gamesa Eólica SL and Enercon GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 March 2012 (Case R 260/2011-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Gamesa Eólica, SL.