ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 12 February 2009 – Lee/DE v OHIM – Cooperativa italiana di ristorazione (PIAZZA del SOLE)

(Case T-265/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark PIAZZA del SOLE – Earlier national and international word marks PIAZZA and PIAZZA D’ORO – Relative ground for refusal – Lack of likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Lack of similarity of the signs

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 56)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2006 (Case R 235/2005‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Sara Lee/DE NV and Cooperativa italiana di ristorazione Soc. Coop. rl.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Cooperativa italiana di ristorazione Soc. coop. rl Community trade mark sought: Word mark PIAZZA del SOLE for goods and services in Classes 16, 21, 25, 29, 30, 35, 36 and 42 – Application No 1518901 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sara Lee/DE NV Marks or signs cited in opposition: National and international word mark PIAZZA and PIAZZA D’ORO for goods in Classes 21, 29, 30 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2009 – Germany v Commission

(Case T-21/06)

State aid – Digital terrestrial television – Aid granted by the German authorities to broadcasters which use the digital terrestrial television network (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Principles of sound administration and proportionality – Rights of the defence

1. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Discretion of the Commission – Judicial review – Limits – Possibility of adopting guidelines (Art. 87(3) EC) (see paras 50-51)

2. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Discretion of the Commission – Principle of sound administration – Rights of the defence (see paras 77-79)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/513/EC of 9 November 2005 on the State Aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 14).

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 48, 50-51

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2007 (Case R 658/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos SL and Polaris Software Lab Ltd.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos, SL to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules (see para. 49)

2. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing (Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Arts 1(2) and 2(2)) (see para. 83)

3. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 7(4); Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8(1)) (see para. 99)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 355, p. 96), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the fruit and vegetable sector.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain 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 which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 21, 26-28

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 December 2006 (Case R 1047/2004-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BioGenerix as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>10

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ratiopharm GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Observations of third parties and opposition

–

Examination of the opposition

–

Proof of use of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 4(2) and (3)) (see paras 36-37

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2007 (Case R 791/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Heinrich Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH & Co. KG and Design for Woman SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>13

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Partially annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 January 2007 (Case R 791/2006-2) in so far as it finds that genuine use of the earlier marks has not been proven in respect of ‘shoes’ in Class 25 covered by the application for a Community trade mark;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders OHIM 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 which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 54-55, 63, 67-68)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 75-76)

3. Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Observance of the rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see paras 79-80)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 July 2007 (Case R 1065/2005-4) relating to an application for registration of the word mark EASYCOVER as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>16

Operative part

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 July 2007 (Case R 1065/2005 4) as regards goods in the category ‘monuments, not of metal’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Duro Sweden AB to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of OHIM’s costs. OHIM is ordered to pay one quarter of its own costs.
Case T-450/07

Harwin International LLC

v

Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community trade mark Pickwick COLOUR GROUP — Earlier national trade marks PicK OuiC and PICK OUIC Cuadrado, SA VALENCIA — Request for proof of use — Article 56(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 12 June 2009 II ‐ 1953

Summary of the Judgment

Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 43 and 56(2))

So far as the principles underlying it are concerned, the system provided for by Article 56 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark concerning cancellation proceedings, which refers also to Article 43 of that regulation concerning opposition proceedings, must be described as follows:

— the proprietor of an earlier trade mark is obliged to prove the use of its mark only if that use is challenged by the proprietor of the trade mark which is the subject-matter of an application for a declaration of invalidity;

— in the absence of such a challenge, the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) may confine itself to considering whether a likelihood of confusion exists, without considering proof of use;

— where there is such a challenge of the use, whether by means of a request for proof of use submitted by the proprietor of the trade mark which is the subject-matter of an application for a declaration of invalidity or by means of that party challenging the evidence submitted by the proprietor of the earlier mark to prove use, the Office is required to examine the issue of proof of use prior to that of the existence of a likelihood of confusion.

(see para. 25)
Case T-185/07

Calvin Klein Trademark Trust

v

Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark CK CREACIONES KENNYA — Earlier Community figurative mark CK Calvin Klein and earlier national figurative marks CK — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber), 7 May 2009 II ‐ 1325

Summary of the Judgment

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

There is, for the average consumer in Spain and in the Community, no likelihood of confusion between, on the one hand, the word sign CK CREACIONES KENNYA, for which registration as a Community trade mark was sought in respect of ‘Leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes; animal skins; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks; whips, harness and saddlery’ and ‘Clothing, footwear, headgear’ in Classes 18 and 25 of the Nice Agreement respectively, and, on the other hand, the figurative mark CK Calvin Klein, previously registered as a Community trade mark, and the figurative mark CK, previously registered in Spain in respect of goods in the same Classes.

The visual, phonetic and conceptual examination of the marks shows that the overall impression created by the earlier marks is dominated by the sole or dominant element ‘ck’ whereas that created by the trade mark applied for is dominated by the element ‘creaciones kennya’. The lack of similarity between the signs at issue thus stems from the visual, phonetic and conceptual differences noted above.

The fact that the goods covered by the conflicting marks are identical does not alter the assessment that it is inappropriate to conclude that there was a likelihood of confusion since the signs in question are not similar. It is clear from the mark applied for that the group of letters ‘ck’ refers to the words ‘creaciones kennya’, which distinguish without ambiguity the trade mark applied for from the earlier marks. As the conflicting signs must be similar for there to be a likelihood of confusion, a finding that there is no such similarity precludes the possibility of a likelihood of confusion.

(see paras 36, 52-54)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2009 — Lange Uhren v OHIM (Geometric shapes on a watch-face)

(Case T-152/07)

‛Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark — Geometric shapes on a watch-face — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009’

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Exception — Distinctive character acquired through use (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3)) (see paras 77, 82, 87-92, 130-136, 142, 143)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2007 (Case R 1176/2005-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing geometric shapes on a watch-face.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Lange Uhren GmbH Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark representing geometric shapes on a watch-face for goods in Class 14 — Application No 2542694 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — Ristic and Others v Commission

(Case T-238/07)

‛Animal health — Protective measures — Decision 2007/362/EC — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate — Action for damages — Principle of proportionality — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations — Duty of care — Right to property and right to carry on economic activity’

1. Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 37-39)

2. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 51-52)

3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 55-56)

4. Agriculture — Approximation of laws on animal health — Control measures to be implemented in relation to certain substances and their residues in live animals and their products — Directive 96/23 (Council Directive 96/23; Commission Decision 2007/362) (see paras 58-60, 66-68, 74, 76-82)

5. Agriculture — Approximation of laws on animal health — Control measures to be implemented in relation to certain substances and their residues in live animals and their products — Directive 96/23 (Council Directive 96/23; Commission Decision 2007/362) (see paras 85-91)

6. Non-contractual liability — Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 92-93)

Re:

First, application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/362/EC of 16 May 2007 amending Decision 2004/432/EC on the approval of residue monitoring plans submitted by third countries in accordance with Council Directive 96/23/EC (OJ 2007 L 138, p. 18), and, second, application for damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application for annulment;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 — France v Commission

(Case T-432/07)

‛EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Fruit and vegetables — Conditions for recognition of producers’ organisations’

1. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Fruit and vegetables — Producers’ organisations — EAGGF financing — Recognition of those organisations by the national authorities — Conditions (Council Regulations Nos 1035/72 and 2200/96, Art. 11(1)(b) and (2)(d)) (see paras 35-37)

2. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Fruit and vegetables — Producers’ organisations — EAGGF financing — Recognition of those organisations by the national authorities — Conditions (Council Regulation No 2200/96, Art. 11(1)(c)) (see paras 54-56)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/647/EC of 3 October 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2007 L 261, p. 28), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the French Republic for producers’ organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector.

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 75

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2007 (Case R 1040/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between P.P.TV – Publicidade de Portugal e Televisão, SA and Rentrak Corp.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders P.P.TV – Publicidade de Portugal e Televisão, SA, 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 unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade – Conditions – Interpretation in the light of Community law – Assessment having regard to criteria laid down by national law governing the sign invoked (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 49-51)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 67, 103-107)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2007 (Case R 1478/2006-2) in opposition proceedings between Olive Line International, SL, and Mr Reinhard Knopf.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 September 2007 (Case R 1478/2006-2);

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs;

3. Orders Mr Reinhard Knopf to bear his own costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 July 2014 — Italy v Commission

(Case T‑463/07)

‛EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Premiums for bovines — Olive oil and fats — Dried fodder — Effectiveness of controls — System for penalties’

1. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof — Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (Council Regulation No 1290/2005, Art. 31) (see paras 12-15, 136, 141, 196, 203)

2. Agriculture — EAGGF — Grant of aids and premiums — Obligation of Member States to organise an effective system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks — Unreliable controls — Disallowance by the Fund (Commission Regulation No 2419/2001, Art. 15) (see paras 44-46, 187, 188)

3. Actions for annulment — Contested act — Assessment of legality in the light of the information available at the time of adoption of the measure (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 108)

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2007/647/EC of 3 October 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2007 L 261, p. 28), in so far as that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 2 April 2008 – Eurocopter v OHIM (STEADYCONTROL)

(Case T-181/07)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark STEADYCONTROL – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 46, 50, 55)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2007 (Case R 8/2006-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark STEADYCONTROL as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Eurocopter SAS Community trade mark sought: Word mark STEADYCONTROL for goods in Classes 9, 12 and 38 – Application No 3560935 Decision of the examiner: Registration partially refused for goods in Classes 9 and 12 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 12 November 2008 – Scil proteins v OHIM – Indena (affilene)

(Case T-87/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark affilene – Earlier Community word mark AFFILIN – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity between products – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative ground for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40-42, 45-52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2007 (Case R 10/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Scil proteins GmbH and Indena SpA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Indena SpA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark affilene for goods in Class 1 – Application No 2751931 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Scil proteins GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark AFFILIN for goods in Classes 1 and 5 – Registration No 2583391 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition partially upheld





Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 23 January 2007 (Case R 10/2006-2) in so far as it dismisses the opposition with respect to the following goods: ‘extracts of medicinal plants for use in the pharmaceutical, cosmetic and food industries, not for diagnostic purposes’;