ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
According to the first subparagraph of Article 11(2) of basic anti-dumping Regulation No 1225/2009, an anti-dumping measure is to expire five years from its imposition or five years from the date of the conclusion of the most recent review which has covered both dumping and injury, unless it is determined in a review that the expiry would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. It follows that, by virtue of that provision, the measures are to expire unless it has been shown that such expiry would lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Pursuant to that provision, in order not to maintain a definitive anti-dumping measure, the Union institutions are not therefore required to demonstrate that the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury is unlikely, but may limit themselves to a finding that such a probability has not been demonstrated.

Since examination of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury involves the assessment of complex economic matters, judicial review of such an appraisal must be limited to verifying whether the procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts on which the contested choice is based have been accurately stated, and whether there have been manifest errors in the assessment of those facts or a misuse of powers.

Nevertheless, as regards review of the evidence on which the EU institutions based their findings, it is for the EU judicature not only to establish whether the evidence put forward is factually accurate, reliable and consistent but also to determine whether that evidence contains all the relevant data that must be taken into consideration in appraising a complex situation and whether it was capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it.

(see paras 48, 50, 55-57)
30

Finally, contrary to what arises implicitly from the objections formulated by the Board of Appeal in the contested decision (as referred to in paragraph 6 above), where — as in the present case with regard to goods in Class 12 — a list has been provided of the goods, in a given category, in respect of which the mark at issue was registered, an applicant for revocation cannot be required to identify all the sub-categories of goods and services which it considers capable of being individually distinguishable from one another while falling within the one broad category designated in the registration of the mark at issue, in order for its application to be declared admissible. First, as noted in paragraph 23 above, it is solely for the applicant for revocation to determine the scope of its request for proof that the mark at issue has been put to genuine use. In the present case, the applicant has clearly complied with that requirement by initially incorporating in the application for revocation the description of the category of goods falling within Class 12, in respect of which the mark at issue was registered, expressly and fully and subsequently limiting the scope of that application by excluding a number of sub-categories of goods which it did not dispute have been put to genuine use. Secondly, it should be noted that under Article 26(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, an application for a Community trade mark must contain a list of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought. It follows that only the applicant for registration of a Community mark is entitled to determine, under the control of the competent OHIM adjudicatory bodies, the scope of protection it would like to be granted to that mark. Therefore, in the present case, since, when registering the mark at issue, the intervener designated the goods in question by reference to a single broad category, without further identifying the sub-categories of goods and services which were capable of falling within it, the Board of Appeal was wrong to declare inadmissible the application for revocation on the ground that the applicant had failed to identify such sub-categories in that application.
58

In the light of those circumstances, contrary to the findings of the Board of Appeal and to the contentions of OHIM and the intervener, it is not possible to regard the use of the earlier Community trade mark during the period in question as merely token, or to regard that mark as not having been used in order to create or preserve an outlet for TVR sports cars. The fact that the production and sale of those cars fell in 2006 and that their manufacture ceased at the end of 2006 because of the insolvency of the factory in the United Kingdom is not sufficient for the contrary conclusion to be reached, having regard to the proven attempts by the proprietor of that trade mark to revive the production of TVR sports cars and its commercial activities during 2007 and 2008. Accordingly, the Court must also reject the Board of Appeal’s statement, set out in paragraph 29 of the contested decision, that the financial difficulties affecting the exploitation of the earlier Community trade mark allowed doubts to remain as to its use after the summer of 2006, for that statement does not take account of the fact that it suffices that a mark has been put to genuine use for at least a part of the five-year period for the purposes of Article 42(2) and Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (see paragraphs 52 and 53 above). It should be recalled, lastly, that the case-law has recognised that the purpose of those provisions is not to assess commercial success or to review the economic strategy of an undertaking, nor is it intended to restrict trade mark protection to the case where large scale commercial use has been made of the marks (see paragraph 45 above).
8

In addition, the Board of Appeal stated, regarding the descriptive character of the contested mark, that Winnetou was the main character in a series of novels by the author Karl May, and the protagonist of films, and radio or theatre plays. It added that according to the judgments of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) and the Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patent Court, Germany) (‘the decisions of the German courts’), cited by the intervener, the German consumer understands the term ‘winnetou’ to refer to a fictional, noble and good Native American chieftain and, according to the Bundesgerichtshof, in Germany, it was descriptive of the printed matter, the film production, publishing of books and magazines (paragraphs 22 to 25 of the contested decision). Although the Board of Appeal noted that it was not bound by the decisions of national courts, it stated that, in this case, in so far as a higher national court had ruled that the term ‘winnetou’ was descriptive in Germany, the contested mark had to be also regarded as ineligible for protection under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in respect of goods and services connected to books, radio and television (paragraph 27 of the contested decision). Thus, the Board of Appeal held that for ‘films, in particular animated films, video films’, ‘magnetic data carriers, recording discs’ and ‘exposed films, including for cinematographic purposes’ in class 9, and ‘printed matter’, ‘bookbinding material’, the ‘photographs’ in class 16, and the services of ‘events for entertainment, cultural and sporting purposes, rental of films and sound recordings’‘film production and film showings’ and ‘photography’, ‘entertainment’, ‘events in leisure parks and holiday parks’, ‘holiday camp services’, ‘providing campground facilities’ and ‘exploitation of industrial property rights’ in Classes 41 and 42, the sign WINNETOU described or directly indicated the content of those goods and services because the consumer simply assumes that those goods or services relate to Winnetou or have a Winnetou theme (paragraphs 28 to 31 of the contested decision). Next, as regards the other goods or services, the Board of Appeal noted that — with the exception of ‘printers’ type’ and ‘printing blocks’ in Class 16, which had no connection with the character of Winnetou, the books, films or festivals — the other goods could be classified as ‘merchandising’ goods with a direct link to Winnetou and that certain goods or services, such as food or ‘transport’ services, ‘accommodation and catering’, had a direct link with the festivals (paragraphs 32 to 46 of the contested decision). Given those elements, the Board of Appeal decided that the contested mark was descriptive for all those goods and services.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 April 2015 —

Rezone v OHIM — mobile. International (mobile.de promoter)

(Case T‑337/14)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark mobile.de promoter — Prior national figurative mark mobile — Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 165(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 18)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Condition of admissibility — Grounds of appeal directed only against decisions of the Boards of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(1)) (see para. 23)

3. Community 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) (see para. 24)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 February 2014 (Case R 950/2013-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Rezon OOD and mobile.international GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
1.

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 26, 44)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2015 —

Best-Lock (Europe) v OHIM — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure with protrusion)

(Case T‑396/14)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a toy figure with protrusion — Absolute grounds for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(i) and (ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — Reference to annexes as a whole — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 17)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Repetition, wholly or in part, of the arguments already invoked before OHIM — Lawfulness (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 19)

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 — Presence of non-essential characteristics with no technical function — Not relevant to the ground for refusal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see para. 28)

4. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Three-dimensional mark consisting in the shape of a toy figure with protrusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see paras 30-34)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2014 (Case R 1696/2013‑4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd and Lego Juris A/S.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Weighting of the elements of similarity or difference between the signs — Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the marketing conditions of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 84)
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 12, 13)

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

3. 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 para. 17)

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 — Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 18)

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 — Word mark 2good (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20-23, 30, 31)

6. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see paras 38-40)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 February 2014 (Case R 996/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign 2good as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders August Storck KG 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 composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 11, 21)

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 12, 13, 22-24, 33)

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 — Word mark STREET (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 14, 25-31)

4. 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 39-41)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark STREET (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 44-46)

6. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 48-52)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2014 (Case R 2025/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign STREET as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Volkswagen AG 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 45)

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 NEW MAX and MAX (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 46)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 37)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (Case R 2035/2012-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG and Warenhandelszentrum Ltd.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Warenhandelszentrum Ltd to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 October 2015 —

Geilenkothen Fabrik für Schutzkleidung v OHIM (Cottonfeel)

(Case T‑822/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Cottonfeel — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive 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 capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 17)

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 — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c), and (2)) (see paras 18, 19, 23, 38-40)

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 — Word mark Cottonfeel (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c), and (2)) (see paras 21, 22, 24, 25)

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 — Concept — Word mark composed of elements describing characteristics of the goods or services concerned — Whether included where the nature of the combination is not unusual (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 38)

5. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2014 (Case R 2579/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Cottonfeel as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Plea based on provisions erroneously stated — Admissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 48-52)

2. Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Protection of plant varieties — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Procedural role of the Community Plant Variety Office — Right of the Office, although designated as the defendant, to support the applicant’s claims (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 172) (see paras 70, 71)

3. Acts of the institutions — Temporal application — Procedural rules — Substantive rules — Distinction — Retrospective effect of a substantive rule — Conditions (see para. 75)

4. Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Protection of plant varieties — Technical examination — Discretion of the CPVO — Scope — Decisions of the Office concerning guiding principles — Legal nature — Self-limitation of its discretion (Council Regulation No 2100/94, Arts 7(1) and (2), and 56(2); Commission Regulation No 1239/95, Arts 22, 23 and 27) (see paras 81, 83-86)

5. Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Protection of plant varieties — Technical examination — Account taken of a character not envisaged by the guiding principles in force — Not permissible — Retrospective authorisation of the use of such a character by the President of the CPVO — Not permissible (Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 56(2); Commission Regulation No 1239/95, Arts 22 and 23) (see paras 87, 92, 93)

6. Actions for annulment — Subject-matter — Decision based on several pillars of reasoning, each sufficient to justify the operative part — Decision on the protection of plant varieties — Pleas relating to an error or other illegality affecting only one of the grounds — Pleas not entailing the annulment of the decision (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 98, 99)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against two decisions of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 20 September 2013 (Cases A 004/2007 and A 003/2007) concerning the grant of a Community plant variety right for the Gala Schnitzer apple variety.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Schniga Srl to pay the costs incurred by Brookfield New Zealand Limited and by Elaris SNC and to pay its own costs. The Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) is ordered to bear its own costs.