ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31-32, 81-82

)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 March 2012 — Armani v OHIM – Del Prete (AJ AMICI JUNIOR)

(Case T-420/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark AJ AMICI JUNIOR — Earlier national figurative mark AJ ARMANI JEANS — Earlier national word mark ARMANI JUNIOR — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32-35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2010 (Case R 1360/2009-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Giorgio Armani SpA and Ms Annunziata Del Prete.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 July 2010 (Case R 1360/2009-2);

2. Orders OHIM and Ms Annunziata Del Prete each to pay half of the costs incurred by Giorgio Armani SpA before the Board of Appeal;

3. Orders OHIM and Ms Del Prete to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Giorgio Armani before the Court.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 March 2012 — Armani v OHIM – Del Prete (AJ AMICI JUNIOR)

(Case T-420/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark AJ AMICI JUNIOR — Earlier national figurative mark AJ ARMANI JEANS — Earlier national word mark ARMANI JUNIOR — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32-35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2010 (Case R 1360/2009-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Giorgio Armani SpA and Ms Annunziata Del Prete.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 July 2010 (Case R 1360/2009-2);

2. Orders OHIM and Ms Annunziata Del Prete each to pay half of the costs incurred by Giorgio Armani SpA before the Board of Appeal;
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark

—

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

—

Absolute grounds for refusal

—

Signs constituted solely by the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result

—

Definition (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e), (ii)) (see paras 26-28

)
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

3 July 2012

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Social security — Reimbursement of medical expenses — Acts adversely affecting the applicant — Implied refusal’

Appeal:

against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 6 October 2010 in Case F‑2/10 Marcuccio v Commission [2010] ECR-SC seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 6 October 2010 in Case F‑2/10 Marcuccio v Commission is set aside. The case is referred back to the Civil Service Tribunal. The costs are reserved.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Acts adversely affecting the applicant — Definition — No reply received to the request made — Implied decision rejecting the request

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90)

A letter by which the person concerned is informed that his request is under consideration does not entail acceptance of the request at issue, even if the letter in question indicates that the request will probably be accepted. In such circumstances, if no reply to the request has been received in the period prescribed by Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, this is deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting it, against which a complaint may be lodged in accordance with Article 90(2) thereof. To adopt the view that the existence of such a letter precludes the implied rejection of a request would effectively deprive the person concerned of any remedy if the administration were to fail to take a view on the request at issue. Such an outcome would be contrary to both the spirit and the letter of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 21, 22)
In competition matters, when the parent company has not actually participated in the cartel and is held liable solely on account of its subsidiary’s participation therein, the parent’s liability is regarded as purely derivative, secondary and dependent on that of its subsidiary and cannot therefore exceed the liability of the subsidiary. Consequently, in the context of an annulment action brought by a parent company against a Commission decision imputing to that parent company liability for an infringement committed by one of its subsidiaries and holding it jointly and severally liable for payment of the fine imposed on the subsidiary, the General Court may, without ruling ultra petita, apply to that parent company, in so far as it has formally pleaded to that effect, any reduction in the amount of the fine which may have been granted to its subsidiary in an annulment action brought in parallel by the subsidiary against the same decision.

(see paras 201, 203, 207, 211)
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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 59-62) ) Subject of the case Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2012 (R 1045/2009 2) relating to opposition proceedings between Seven SpA and Tsakiris-Mallas AE. Operative part Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Tsakiris-Mallas AE to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2012 — Tsakiris-Mallas v OHIM — Seven (7 Seven Fashion Shoes)

(Case T-244/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark 7 Seven Fashion Shoes — Earlier national figurative marks Seven and 7seven — Partial refusal to register — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 59-62))

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2012 (R 1045/2009 2) relating to opposition proceedings between Seven SpA and Tsakiris-Mallas AE.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Common commercial policy — Protection against subsidisation practices of non-Member States — Imposition of a definitive countervailing duty — Calculation error following incorrect information supplied by the main exporter (Council Regulation No 597/2009, Arts 15(1) and 30(1)) (see paras 37-42, 65, 66)

2. Common commercial policy — Protection against subsidisation practices of non-Member States — Course of the investigation — Communication to the parties concerned of the information gathered — Observations of the parties on the final information — Obligation on the Commission to take into account — Scope (Council Regulation No 597/2009, Art. 30(1), (2) and (5)) (see paras 68-87)

3. Common commercial policy — Protection against subsidisation practices of non-Member States — Course of the investigation — Powers of the Commission — Limits — Obligation of the undertakings concerned by a complaint to cooperate — Scope (Council Regulation No 597/2009, Arts 11(2) and 26) (see para. 80)

4. Common commercial policy — Protection against subsidisation practices of non-Member States — Course of the investigation — Obligation to check whether information provided by the parties concerned correct — Scope (Council Regulation No 597/2009, Art. 11(8)) (see paras 97-101, 104, 105)

5. Union law — Principles — Principle of sound administration — Duty of diligence — Administrative procedure — Investigation concerning subsidisation practices of non-Member States — Scope (see paras 112, 113)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 of 27 September 2010 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain types of polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (OJ 2010 L 254, p. 10).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders JBF RAK LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Hartmann v OHIM — Mölnlycke Health Care (MESILETTE)

(Case T-342/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MESILETTE — Earlier national and international word marks MEDINETTE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20-22, 28-39)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1222/2009-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Paul Hartmann AG and Mölnlycke Health Care AB.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1222/2009-2);
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 October 2012 — Lancôme v OHIM — Focus Magazin Verlag (COLOR FOCUS)

(Case T-204/10)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark COLOR FOCUS — Earlier Community word mark FOCUS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the marks — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Abuse of right’

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 22, 37, 54)

2. Community 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 — Word marks COLOR FOCUS and FOCUS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 24, 25, 36, 55)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 46)

4. European Union law — Principles — Prohibition of abuse of right (see paras 59, 60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2010 (Case R 238/2009-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH and Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie.

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 devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 45, 46)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark consisting in the shape of the product — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment (Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 47-50)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Exception — Acquisition of distinctiveness through use — Three-dimensional mark constituted by the shape of a bag (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b), and (3)) (see paras 53, 56, 64, 65, 68, 69, 85-87, 94-96, 99, 100)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Exception — Acquisition of distinctiveness through use — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(3)) (see paras 72-76)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2010 (Case R 1539/2009-1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of a bag as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bottega Veneta International Sàrl to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 July 2012 — Deutscher Ring v OHIM (Deutscher Ring Sachversicherungs-AG)

(Case T-209/10)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Deutscher Ring Sachversicherungs-AG — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — No power to issue directions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 11)

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 service — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)) (see paras 17, 18)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a service — Word mark Deutscher Ring Sachversicherungs-AG (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b), and (c)) (see paras 20-31)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2010 (Case R 1290/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Deutscher Ring Sachversicherungs-AG as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 March 2010 (Case R 1290/2009-1);
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 — Word mark CARBON GREEN (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 22-32)

2. 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 First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 April 2010 (Case R 1361/2009-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign CARBON GREEN as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders CBp Carbon Industries, Inc. to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2015 —

Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — Pi-Design and Others (Representation of a surface with black dots)

(Joined Cases T‑331/10 RENV and T‑416/10 RENV)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative trade marks representing a surface with black dots — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. 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 — Two- or three- dimensional signs — Included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see paras 38, 39)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Figurative marks representing a surface with black dots (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see paras 53, 64-66)

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 — Existence of other shapes allowing the same technical result to be obtained — Not relevant to the ground for refusal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see paras 62, 65)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Cases R 1235/2008‑1 and R 1237/2008‑1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Pi-design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S, on the one hand, and Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd, on the other.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;
Even if the operative part of the judgment on appeal declares that judgment of the General Court is set aside without specifying the extent to which it is set aside, it does not preclude the operative part of the judgment on appeal being read in conjunction with the grounds set out in that judgment. In order to comply with a judgment annulling a measure and to implement it fully, the institution is required to have regard not only to the operative part of the judgment but also to the grounds which led to it and constitute its essential basis, in so far as they are necessary to determine the exact meaning of what is stated in the operative part. It is those grounds which, on the one hand, identify the precise provision held to be illegal and, on the other, indicate the specific reasons which underlie the finding of illegality contained in the operative part and which the institution concerned must take into account when replacing the annulled measure.

Where the Court of Justice has stated in a judgment on appeal that the judgment under appeal must be set aside, in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court had held that the Board of Appeal was required to examine the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier marks, acquired through use, and had annulled the decision at issue on the ground that the Board had failed to do so, notwithstanding a prior finding in the judgment under appeal that the marks at issue were dissimilar, the Court of Justice does not intend to call into question the findings of fact made by the General Court as regards the analysis of the similarity of the signs at issue, and which constituted the basis of the reasoning of the Court of Justice.

As that ground for setting aside the judgment under appeal does not affect those findings of fact, the examination of the ground of appeal is therefore concluded by the finding that examination of the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier marks, acquired through use, was ineffective, since the signs at issue were different.

That is also confirmed where the Court of Justice has observed that, since the General Court had already found that the marks at issue were dissimilar overall, any likelihood of confusion had to be ruled out and the possible enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier marks, acquired through use, could not offset the lack of similarity between the marks at issue.

In addition, if the analysis of the similarity of the signs at issue were to be called into question at this stage, when the Court of Justice made no mention of any error by the General Court on that point, that would be tantamount to setting up the Second Chamber of the General Court as an appellate court from the First Chamber of the General Court and, furthermore, to depriving the judgment on appeal of part of its binding effect, in so far as the setting-aside of the judgment under appeal could not go further than the setting-aside declared by the Court of Justice and allow the facts to be called into question, thereby rendering inoperative the grounds on which the judgment on appeal is based.

(see paras 38-40, 43)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 July 2011 – ratiopharm v OHIM – Nycomed (ZUFAL)

(Case T-222/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark ZUFAL – Earlier Community word mark ZURCAL – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Similarity of the goods – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application – Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-20, 44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2010 (Case R 874/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Nycomed GmbH and ratiopharm GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;