ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2017 —

zero v EUIPO — Hemming (ZIRO)

(Case T‑106/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative trade mark ZIRO — Earlier EU figurative mark zero — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18, 40, 51)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 19)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative marks ZIRO and zero (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21, 23, 36, 46, 50, 55)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 25)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 (Case R 71/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between zero Holding and Mr Hemming.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 January 2016 (Case R 71/2015-5);
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 8 March 2017 —

Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata)

(Case T‑23/16)

(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Formata — Absolute ground for invalidity — Absence of bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for invalidity — Likelihood of confusion — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Applicant in bad faith when lodging the trade mark application — Criteria for assessment — Taking into account of all relevant factors at the time of filing the application for registration — Applicant’s knowledge that a third party is using an identical or similar sign — Intention of the applicant — Degree of legal protection of the signs at issue — Commercial logic underlying the registration of the contested sign as an EU trade mark — Chronology of events characterising the filing of the trade mark application (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paras 42-44)

2. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 58)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2015 (Case R 102/2015-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ms Biernacka-Hoba and Formata Bogusław Hoba.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 November 2015 (Case R 102/2015-2), in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed the application for a declaration of invalidity based on a relative ground for invalidity;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Ms Ilona Biernacka-Hoba;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 —

Azanta v EUIPO — Novartis (NIMORAL)

(Case T‑49/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark NIMORAL — Earlier EU word mark NEORAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 60-62)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Assessment of the likelihood of confusion—Attention level of the public—Medicinal products (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 22, 28, 67, 68)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Word marks NIMORAL and NEORAL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 27, 30, 53, 58, 59, 69)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 32)

5. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Similarity of the marks concerned—Whether conceptual differences may neutralise visual or aural similarities—Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2015 (Case R 634/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis and Azanta.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 —

Haw Par v EUIPO — Cosmowell (GELENKGOLD)

(Case T‑25/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark GELENKGOLD — Earlier EU figurative mark representing a tiger — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Force of res judicata — Enhanced distinctive character of the earlier mark acquired through use — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Series of marks)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23-25)

2. Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Scope — Absolute authority of res judicata — Scope — Both operative part and grounds to be taken into account (Arts 264 TFEU and 266 TFEU) (see paras 29, 33, 34, 42-46)

3. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Implementation of a judgment annulling a decision adopted by a Board of Appeal — New examination of the appeal — Observance of the rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence) (see paras 54-57)

4. EU 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 para. 66)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Likelihood of association — Earlier trade marks showing characteristics enabling them to be regarded as forming part of the same ‘series’ or ‘family’ — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 68, 74-76)

6. EU trade mark — Registration procedure — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier marks capable of constituting a family of marks — Actual use — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2)) (see paras 79, 80)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2015 (Case R 1907/2015-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Haw Par and Cosmowell.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2017 —

Marsh v EUIPO (LegalPro)

(Case T‑472/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark LegalPro — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 13)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 14, 15, 25, 26)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept — Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 16)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark LegalPro (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 28, 39, 43)

5. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Examination by the EU judicature — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 31)

6. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2016 (Case R 146/2016-4) concerning the application for registration of the word sign LegalPro as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the goods or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), and 75, first sentence)

(see paras 29, 30)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 May 2017 —

adp Gauselmann v EUIPO (MULTI FRUITS)

(Case T‑355/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark MULTI FRUITS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 24, 35)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Concept—Neologism consisting of elements descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services concerned (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20-23)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Word mark MULTI FRUITS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 25-28, 33, 36-39)

4. EU trade mark—Decisions of the Office—Principle of equal treatment—Principle of sound administration—EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice—Principle of legality—Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (see para. 40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 (Case R 1043/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MULTI FRUITS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 June 2017 —

E-Control v ACER

(Case T‑63/16)

(Energy — Conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity — National regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border transmission capacity — Compatibility with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 — Opinion of ACER — Definition of a decision open to appeal before ACER — Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 — Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER dismissing the appeal as inadmissible — Error of law — Failure to state reasons)

1. EU agencies — Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) — Appeals procedure — Action before the Board of Appeal of ACER — Admissibility criteria — Decision open to challenge — Concept — ACER opinion finding decisions of the national regulatory authorities approving methods of allocation of cross-border transmission capacity non-compliant — Not included — No infringement of the principle of effective legal protection and the right to be heard (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41 and 47; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 713/2009, Arts 7(4) and (5), 16(1), and 19; European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/72, Art. 39(3) and (6)) (see paras 45-49, 53, 54, 59, 62, 63)

2. EU agencies — Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) — Appeals procedure — Action before the Board of Appeal of ACER — Obligation to state reasons for decisions — Scope (Art. 296, second para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 713/2009, Art. 19) (see paras 68-70)

Re:

ACTION under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Decision No A-001-2015 of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 16 December 2015, dismissing an appeal against Opinion No 09/2015 of ACER of 23 September 2015 on the compliance of the decisions of national regulatory authorities approving the methods of allocation of cross-border transmission capacity in the Central-East Europe region with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 15), including the guidelines on the management and allocation of available transfer capacity of interconnections between national systems contained in Annex I thereto.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER);
EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the goods or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c), and 75, first sentence)

(see paras 41-43)
3.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Earlier trade mark constituted by an EU trade mark — Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 27)
The purpose of actions brought before the Court pursuant to Article 65(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark is to secure a review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal. In the context of that regulation, Article 76 thereof requires that review to be carried out in the light of the factual and legal context of the dispute as it was brought before the Board of Appeal. Moreover, under Article 188 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the pleadings lodged by the parties in proceedings before the Court may not change the subject matter of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

In opposition proceedings, interpretation of the list of goods covered by the earlier mark constitutes a question which was part of the factual and legal context before the Board of Appeal. In order to be able to examine the identity or similarity of the goods at issue, the departments of the Office must always determine which goods are covered by the marks at issue and, in that context, they must, where appropriate, interpret the list of goods for which a mark is registered. An argument concerning the interpretation of the list of goods covered by the earlier mark cannot therefore be regarded as falling outside the scope of the dispute, as brought before the Board of Appeal. The issues which necessarily had to be resolved in order to rule in the opposition proceedings form part of the factual and legal framework before the Board of Appeal.

(see paras 16, 17, 25, 26)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2017 — Viridis Pharmaceutical v EUIPO — Hecht-Pharma (Boswelan)

(Case T‑276/16)

(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Boswelan — Declaration of revocation — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — No proper reasons for non-use)

1. EU trade mark—Surrender, revocation and invalidity—Causes of revocation—Absence of genuine use of a trade mark—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Genuine use—Meaning—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51(1)(a)) (see paras 30-33)

2. EU trade mark—Surrender, revocation and invalidity—Causes of revocation—Absence of genuine use of a trade mark—Word mark Boswelan

3. (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51(1)(a)) (see paras 35, 36, 38-40, 59-61, 63)

4. EU trade mark—Surrender, revocation and invalidity—Causes of revocation—Absence of genuine use of a trade mark—Concept of ‘proper reasons’ for non-use—Independent and uniform interpretation—Obstacles bearing a direct relation to the trade mark rendering its use unreasonable or impossible and independent of the volition of the trade mark proprietor (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51(1)(a)) (see paras 52, 54)

5. EU trade mark—Decisions of the Office—Legality—Examination by the EU judicature—Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 62)

6. EU law—Principles—Protection of legitimate expectations—Conditions—Specific assurances given by the authorities (see paras 67, 68)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fifth Board of EUIPO of 29 February 2016 (Case R 2837/2014-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Hecht-Pharma and Viridis Pharmaceutical.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 —

AWG v EUIPO — Takko (Southern Territory 23°48’252”S)

(Case T‑6/16)

(EU trade mark — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — EU word mark Southern Territory 23°48’25’’S — Earlier EU word mark SOUTHERN — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 70, 71)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 19)

3. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks Southern Territory 23o48’25’’S and SOUTHERN (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 20, 22-25, 69, 80, 81)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28-30)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Coexistence of earlier marks — Recognition of a certain degree of distinctiveness of a national mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see para. 36)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Likelihood of association (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 78, 79)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 November 2015 (Case R 735/2015-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Takko Holding and AWG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;