ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 November 2011 – Sports Warehouse v OHIM (TENNIS WAREHOUSE)

(Case T-290/10)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark TENNIS WAREHOUSE – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Distinctive character – Duty to state reasons – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 31-33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 April 2010 (Case R 1259/2009‑1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign TENNIS WAREHOUSE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 November 2011 – Ben Ri Electrónica v OHIM – Sacopa (LT LIGHT-THECNO)

(Case T-143/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark LT LIGHT-THECNO – Earlier Community figurative mark LT – Relative ground for refusal – 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 19, 41-43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2010 (Case R 1625/2008‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ben Ri Electrónica, SA and Sacopa, SA.

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 3 February 2010 (Case R 1625/2008-4);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2012 – Hell Energy Magyarország v OHIM – Hansa Mineralbrunnen (HELL)

(Case T-522/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark HELL – Earlier Community word mark HELLA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the goods and 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 29, 33-34, 67)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2010 (Case R 1517/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Hansa Mineralbrunnen GmbH and Hell Energy Magyarország.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2012 —

Aitic Penteo v OHIM — Atos Worldline (PENTEO)



(Case T‑585/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PENTEO — Earlier Benelux and international word marks XENTEO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 75 and 76 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 51, 74)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Chamber of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2010 (Case R 774/2010‑1) relating to opposition proceedings between Atos Worldline SA and Aitic Penteo, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2012 —

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



(Case T‑416/10)

Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community trade mark representing a surface with black dots — Shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1237/2008‑1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S, of the one part, and Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd, of the other.

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 20 May 2010 (Case R 1237/2008‑1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 —

XXXLutz Marken v OHIM — Meyer Manufacturing (CIRCON)



(Case T-542/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CIRCON — Prior Community word mark CIRCULON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Highly distinctive character — Goodwill — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Procedure before the Board of Appeal — Rights of the defence — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009

1. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Summary statement of pleas (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 21)

2. 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, Arts 42(1), and 75) (see paras 70-72, 90)

3. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Amendment of a decision by the Office — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 98)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2010 (Case R 40/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Meyer Manufacturing Co. Ltd and XXXLutz Marken GmbH.

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 3 September 2010 (Case R 40/2010-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by XXXLutz Marken GmbH;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 2 October 2012 — ELE.SI.A v Commission

(Case T-312/10)

Arbitration clause — Sixth multiannual framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) — Contract concerning the ‘I Way, Intelligent, co-operative system in cars for road safety’ project — Termination of the contract — Request for repayment of the financial contribution paid — Damages — Action seeking to obtain the full financial contribution requested and to challenge the request for repayment — Counterclaim

1. Proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Summary statement of pleas — Plea not accompanied by any explanation enabling its merit to be assessed — Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 76)

2. EU budget — EU financial assistance — Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the aid — Contracts concluded under a specific research, technical development and demonstration programme — Procedure for verifying irregularities — Audit of accounting and management principles, jointly carried out by Commission staff and external consultants — No obligation to provide employees questioned with the assistance of an interpreter — Audit not falling within the scope of Regulation No 2185/96 (Council Regulation No 2185/96) (see paras 77-93)

3. Proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Contracts concluded under a specific research, technical development and demonstration programme — Termination of a contract by reason of irregularities committed by the co-contractor — Claims for repayment of the financial contribution paid plus damages — Action seeking payment of the whole of the financial contribution sought and challenging the claim for repayment — Counterclaim — Finding of non-compliance with contractual obligations — Right of the Commission to repayment of the advance plus interest (Art. 272 TFEU) (see paras 103-123, 153-158)

Re:

APPLICATION seeking payment of the financial contribution to which the applicant considers that it is entitled under the terms of Contract No 27195, entered into on 13 December 2005 between the Commission and the applicant, relating to the research project entitled ‘I Way, Intelligent, co-operative system in cars for road safety’, and a counterclaim for repayment of a part of the financial contribution paid and for payment of damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action brought by Elettronica e sistemi per automazione (ELE.SI.A) SpA;

2. Orders ELE.SI.A to pay to the European Commission a sum of EUR 184 129.74, plus interest from 18 May 2010, together with a sum of EUR 7 344.46, plus interest from 18 June 2010;
Keywords



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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20-26, 30, 31, 39, 40

)
Restitutio in integrum is subject to two conditions, first, that the party acted with all due care required by the circumstances and, second, that the non-observance of the time-limit by that party has the direct consequence of causing the loss of any right or means of redress. The requirement to exercise due care lies in the first instance with the proprietor of the trade mark. Thus, if the proprietor delegates administrative tasks relating to the renewal of a mark, it must ensure that the person chosen offers the assurance necessary to enable it to be assumed that those tasks will be carried out properly. Moreover, since those tasks have been delegated, the person chosen is subject to the requirement to exercise due care just as much as the proprietor. Since that person acts on behalf of and in the name of the proprietor, its actions must be regarded as being the proprietor’s actions.

The words ‘all due care required by the circumstances’, in Article 81(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, require a system of internal control and monitoring of time-limits to be put in place that generally excludes the involuntary non-observance of time-limits, as laid down in the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) guidelines. It follows that restitutio in integrum may be granted only in the case of exceptional events, which cannot therefore be predicted from experience. Human errors committed at the time of the technical management of renewals cannot be regarded as exceptional or unforeseeable events which cannot be predicted from experience.

Where the renewal of marks is entrusted to a specialised company using a computerised renewal reminder system, the due care required by the circumstances in particular requires that that system be capable of detecting and correcting any foreseeable error in the functioning of the computerised system. The ‘corruption’ or the loss of data is a foreseeable error, the risk of which is inherent in any computerised system.

(see paras 20, 24, 26)
Case T-671/11

IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH

v

European Commission

‛Financial assistance for an ecological tourism project — Repayment of the amounts recovered — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the earlier decision cancelling the assistance — Compensatory interest — Default interest — Calculation’

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber), 10 April 2013

Where the Commission acknowledges by decision that it owes an applicant a certain amount, including compensatory interest, the fact that, in an earlier judgment annulling a previous Commission decision, the General Court found irregularities by the applicant in connection with financial assistance for an ecological tourism project cannot call into question the existence of the principal debt or the fact that, to that extent, the Commission is liable to pay interest which must be calculated in accordance with the relevant rules. Even though the General Court confirmed the Commission’s factual findings relating to irregularities committed which, in principle, justified the cancellation of the financial assistance at issue, it confined itself to annulling that decision on account of the Commission’s failure to act within the relevant prescribed period, so that there is no obligation on it to repay that assistance to the applicant. Thus, the Commission’s subsequent decision nevertheless acknowledging the total amount to be paid to the applicant, including compensatory interest and its method of calculation, constitutes the sole legal basis for the principal financial claim at issue. (see paras 33, 34)

The Commission’s obligation to pay a debt following a judgment annulling one if its decisions covers not only the principal amount of the debt but also the interest produced by that amount. In that regard, regardless of the whether the interest is described as compensatory interest or default interest, the interest must always be calculated on the basis of the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, plus 2 percentage points. That is a standard increase which is applicable to all sets of circumstances, there being no need to determine in the specific case whether or not that increase is justified in the light of the inflation, during the period at issue, in the Member State in which the creditor is established. Failure to pay such interest could result in the unjust enrichment of the European Union, which would be contrary to the general principles of EU law. The standard increase of the interest rates by 2 percentage points arose from the need to avoid such unjust enrichment in every possible situation. (see paras 36-38)
For an average EU consumer, there is no risk of confusion, for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark, between the verbal sign GOLDEN BALLS, registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought in respect of products falling within Classes 16, 21 and 24 of the Nice arrangement, and the mark BALLON D’OR previously registered as a Community trade mark in respect of goods and services falling within Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 38 and 41 of that arrangement. Due to the fact that the signs at issue are in different languages, a manifest distinction is created between them so that the average consumer will not immediately associate them without undergoing an intellectual process of translation.

Even if the goods in Class 16 are identical, that weak, or very weak, conceptual similarity which requires a prior translation cannot suffice to make up for the visual and phonetic dissimilarities which exist. Whilst, under the case-law, the possibility cannot be ruled out that a mere conceptual similarity between two marks can create a likelihood of confusion where the goods are similar, provided, however, that the earlier mark has a high distinctive character, no such specific distinctive character of the mark BALLON D’OR has been established in the present case as regards the goods concerned. Moreover, even if that mark enjoys a high distinctive character, and whilst taking account of the identical character of the goods in question, the very weak conceptual similarity, requiring prior translation, cannot, in the circumstances of the case, be sufficient to create, in itself, a likelihood of confusion on the part of the target public.

As regards the goods covered by the trade mark applied for falling within Classes 21 and 24, which are different from those covered by the earlier trade mark, the signs at issue lack the similarity required for the purposes of applying Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

(see paras 58-60, 72, 73)
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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20, 29, 31-36

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 March 2011 (Case R 1665/2010‑2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark AUTOCOACHING as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Pedro Germán Amador López to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 — Wessang v OHIM — Greinwald (star foods)

(Case T-333/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark star foods — Earlier Community word and figurative marks STAR SNACKS — Relative ground for refusal — 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 — Figurative mark star foods and word mark STAR SNACKS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25-38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2011 (Case R 1837/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Nicolas Wessang and Greinwald GmbH.

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 15 April 2011 (Case R 1837/2010-4) in relation to goods falling within Classes 29, 30 and, with the exception of ‘beers’, within Class 32 within the meaning of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and three quarters of the costs of Mr Nicolas Wessang;

4. Orders Mr Wessang to bear one quarter of his own costs;
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 23, 24)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — pelicantravel.com v OHIM — Pelikan (Pelikan)

(Case T-136/11)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark pelikan — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith on the part of the applicant — Article 52(1)(b) 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 — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 17)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Excluded (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 19)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Applicant in bad faith at the time of lodging the trade mark application — Criteria for assessment — Taking account of all the relevant factors existing at the time of filing the application for registration — Applicant aware of the use by a third party of an identical or similar sign — Intention of the applicant — Degree of legal protection of the signs at issue (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 26, 27, 43, 56, 58)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2010 (Case R 1428/2009–2) relating to invalidity proceedings between pelicantravel.com s.r.o. and Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Summary statement of pleas (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 14, 15)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Limitation of the list of products and services after the decision of the Board of Appeal — Consequences (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 43(1)) (see paras 21-23)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks BERG and Christian Berg (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 40, 58, 62-66, 71)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2011 (Case R 1494/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Anson’s Herrenhaus KG and Caventa AG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Caventa AG to pay the costs.