ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part

Keywords Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form differing in elements not altering the distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a) and 51(1)(a)) (see para. 77 ) Subject of the case Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2010 (Case R 449/2009-2) concerning cancellation proceedings between TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft mbH and Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA. Operative part Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft v OHIM — Comercial Jacinto Parera (MAD)

(Case T-152/11)

‛Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community figurative mark MAD — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character — Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009’

Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form differing in elements not altering the distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a) and 51(1)(a)) (see para. 77)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2010 (Case R 449/2009-2) concerning cancellation proceedings between TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft mbH and Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Figurative mark GRUPO BIMBO and word mark BIMBO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 35, 46-51)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 October 2012 — Automobili Lamborghini v OHIM — Miura Martínez (Miura)

(Case T-191/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark Miura — Earlier national word and figurative marks MIURA — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Notification by ordinary mail — Rule 62(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95’

1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence) (see para. 20)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Notification — Notification by ordinary mail (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 62(1) to (5)) (see paras 23-36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2011 (Case R 161/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Eduardo Miura Martínez and Antonio José Miura Martínez and Automobili Lamborghini Holding SpA.

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 21 January 2011 (Case R 161/2010 4);
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Vermop Salmon v OHIM — Leifheit (Clean Twist)

(Case T-61/11)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Clean Twist — Earlier Community word marks TWIX and TWIXSTER — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 27)

4. 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 mark Clean Twist and word marks TWIX and TWIXTER (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 34, 35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2010 (Case R 671/2010-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Vermop Salmon GmbH and Leifheit AG.

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 — 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 18-21, 28, 40)

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 — Figurative marks ONESTO and ENSTO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 25, 41)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 44)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2011 (Case R 2535/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Ensto Oy and Yueqing Onesto Electric Co. Ltd.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Yueqing Onesto Electric Co. 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 — Exception — Acquisition of distinctiveness through use — Mark devoid of distinctive character in part of the Union — Acquisition of distinctive character in that same part (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(3)) (see para. 28)

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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 50-53, 75)

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 — Assessment of the descriptive character of a sign (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 54, 55)

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 — Word mark MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 62-93)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1294/2010-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Maharishi Foundation Ltd to pay the costs.
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 21-23, 43)

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 — Figurative mark Giuseppe GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI DESIGN — Figurative and word marks ZANOTTI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 29, 44, 45, 59, 60, 62, 64)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 27)

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 30, 31, 53)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 634/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Societá Italiana Calzature SpA and Vicini SpA.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Societá Italiana Calzature SpA 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 13, 14)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark RELY-ABLE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15-29, 31, 32)

3. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see paras 33, 34)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2011 (Case R 756/2011-4) concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word sign RELY-ABLE.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 June 2013 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (Lean Performance Index)

(Case T-598/11)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Lean Performance Index — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. 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 Lean Performance Index (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 14, 29, 45, 46)

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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 18, 19)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Examination of the grounds for refusal having regard to each of the products or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), and 75) (see paras 32, 33)

Re:

APPEAL against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2011 (Case R 131/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Lean Performance Index as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 28 May 2013 — Voss of Norway v OHIM — Nordic Spirit (Cylindrical shape of a bottle)

(Case T-178/11)

‛Community trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Three-dimensional Community trade mark depicting the cylindrical shape of a bottle — Absolute grounds for refusal’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 38, 39)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional marks consisting in the shape of the product — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 41-44)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark representing the cylindrical shape of a bottle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 55, 56, 62)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2011 (Case R 785/2010-1) relating to cancellation proceedings between Nordic Spirit AB (publ) and Voss of Norway ASA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Criteria for assessment — Creative licence (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(2), and 25(1)(b)) (see para. 21)

2. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Disclosure by the designer or his successor in title — Proof of the disclosure (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), 7(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

3. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Representation of a bounding feline (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 36, 41-43)

4. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Overall assessment of all the elements presented by the earlier design (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 29-31)

5. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Informed user — Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see para. 32)

6. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Similar requirements for claims invoked in support of a plea (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 34)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2011 (Case R 1137/2010-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport and Danuta Budziewska.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Danuta Budziewska to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — Delphi Technologies v OHIM (INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD)

(Case T-515/11)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. 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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 16)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18, 36)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20-24, 32, 33, 37, 38, 43)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Trade mark made up of several elements — Possible for the competent authority to examine each of the elements making up the trade mark — Need to take account of the overall perception of the combination by the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 29)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 34-36)

6. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 68)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2011 (Case 1967/2010-2) concerning an application for the registration of the word mark INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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. 12)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 20)

3. 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 para. 21)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Inadmissibility (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 22-24)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Slogan with a fantasy character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 54)

6. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 27)

7. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark La qualité est la meilleure des recettes (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 37, 44, 63, 64)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2011 (Case R 1798/2010-G) concerning an application for registration of the word sign La qualité est la meilleure des recettes as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dr August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG to pay the costs.
9.

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 Regulations No 961/2010, Art. 16(2), and No 267/2012, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 84-89)