ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 May 2011 – IIC – Intersport International v OHIM – McKenzie (McKENZIE)

(Case T-502/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative trade mark McKENZIE – Earlier Community figurative and word marks McKINLEY – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now 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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50-52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 October 2007 (Case R 1425/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between The McKenzie Corporation Ltd and IIC – Intersport International Corp. GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The McKenzie Corporation Ltd Community trade mark sought: Community figurative mark McKENZIE for goods and services in Classes 18, 25, 36 and 37 – Application No 2664423 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: IIC – Intersport International Corp. GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: Earlier Community figurative mark MCKINLEY for goods and services in Classes 18, 20, 22, 25 and 28 and the earlier Community word mark MCKINLEY for goods and services in Classes 12, 18, 20, 22, 25 and 28 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition dismissed in its entirety; registration allowed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Bastos Viegas v OHIM — Fabre Médicament (OPDREX)

(Case T-33/08)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark OPDREX — Earlier national word mark OPTREX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now 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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 28, 35-37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2007 (Case R 1238/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pierre Fabre Médicament SA and Bastos Viegas, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bastos Viegas, SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark OPDREX for goods in Classes 5 and 10 and services in Class 35 — Application No 2429249 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Pierre Fabre Médicament, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘OPTREX’ for goods in Class 5 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld, in respect of certain goods in Classes 5 and 10 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision, in so far as it rejects the Community trade mark application in respect of ‘surgical apparatus and instruments’ in Class 10

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Joined Cases T-20/08 and T-21/08

Evets Corp.

v

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

‛Community trade mark — Community word mark DANELECTRO and Community figurative mark QWIK TUNE — Failure to observe the time-limit for submitting a request for renewal of the trade marks — Application for restitutio in integrum — Reformatio in pejus — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Article 61(2), second sentence of Article 73, and Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 63(2), second sentence of Article 75, and Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), 23 September 2009 II ‐ 3518

Summary of the Judgment

Under Article 78(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, an application for restitutio in integrum must be filed in writing within two months from the removal of the cause of non-compliance with the time-limit which has the direct consequence of causing the loss of any right or means of redress. The date on which the loss of a right is brought to the attention of the representative must be deemed to be the date on which the represented person became aware of it. Pursuant to Rule 77 of Regulation No 2868/95 implementing Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, any notification or other communication addressed by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to a duly authorised representative is to have the same effect as if it had been addressed to the represented person. The same applies to any communication addressed to OHIM by a duly authorised representative, which has the same effect as if it originated from the represented person. Therefore, with regard to OHIM, what matters are its communications with the representative and not the communications between the representative and the represented person. (see paras 21-23)

It follows from Article 62(1) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark that, following the examination as to the merits of the appeal, the Board of Appeal is to decide that appeal and that, in doing so, it may ‘exercise any power within the competence of the department which was responsible for the decision appealed’, that is to say, as regards an application for restitutio in integrum, by rejecting it or declaring it to be well founded, thereby either upholding or reversing the decision taken at first instance. Consequently, through the effect of the appeal brought before it, the Board of Appeal is called upon to carry out a new, full examination of the merits of the application for restitutio in integrum, in terms of both law and fact. Issues relating to admissibility cannot be excluded from that ‘new, full examination’ of the application for restitutio in integrum. According to settled case-law, the rules on time-limits were laid down with a view to ensuring legal certainty and avoiding any discrimination or arbitrary treatment. That general statement applies also to time-limits laid down in regulations on the Community trade mark. (see paras 38, 39)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 2 July 2009 — Fitoussi v OHIM — Loriot (IBIZA REPUBLIC)

(Case T-311/08)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark IBIZA REPUBLIC — Earlier figurative national mark depicting a five-pointed star in a circle — Absolute ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now 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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 35, 48, 57-58)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of 7 May 2008 of OHIM’s Second Board of Appeal (Case R 1135/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Paul Fitoussi and Ms Bernadette Nicole J. Loriot.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bernadettte Nicole J. Loriot Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark ‘IBIZA REPUBLIC’ for goods in Classes 25, 41 and 43 — Application No 3868072 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Paul Fitoussi Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark in the form of a five-pointed star surrounded by a circle, for goods in Class 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

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

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 37

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2008 (Case R 728/2008-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign THINKING AHEAD as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>9

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Apollo Group, Inc. to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 20 October 2009 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones (4 OUT Living)

(Case T-307/08)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community mark 4 OUT Living — Earlier national figurative mark Living & Co — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now 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 40/94, Art. 8(1))(b)) (see paras 19-21, 32, 33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2008 (Case R 1199/2007-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones, SL and Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark 4 OUT Living for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 28 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration of the figurative mark Living & Co (No 2604969) for goods and services in Classes 3, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 34 and 35 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Action brought by a trade association set up to protect and represent its members

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action against a Commission decision concerning State aid

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

1. Actions brought by associations whose function it is to defend the collective interests of their members are admissible in three situations: where they represent the interests of undertakings which themselves have standing to bring proceedings; where they are distinguished individually because of the impact on their own interests as associations, in particular because their position as a negotiator has been affected by the measure sought to be annulled; and where a legal provision expressly confers on them a number of rights of a procedural nature.

(see para. 58)

2. An action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person is admissible only in so far as the applicant has an interest in the annulment of the contested measure. Such an interest presupposes that the annulment of the measure must of itself be capable of having legal consequences and that the action must be likely, if successful, to procure an advantage for the party who brought it. The interest must be vested and present and is evaluated as at the date on which the action is brought. It must, however, continue until the final decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate.

An action brought by an undertaking seeking the annulment of a Commission decision laying down a transitional period for terminating a State aid scheme declared incompatible with the common market is inadmissible where the undertaking no longer has a valid authorisation under national law and thus no longer validly benefits from the tax scheme referred to in that decision. The annulment of that decision could not procure any advantage for the undertaking.

(see paras 62-63, 74, 79)
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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 34

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 October 2008 (Case R 889/2008-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BIOPIETRA as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>10

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Kerma SpA 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 – Application submitted expressly and on time by the applicant – Possibility of submitting the application for the first time before the General Court – Not included (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 18-22)

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39-40, 81-83)

3. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 48)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2008 (Case R 287/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Amberes, SA and Kido Industrial Ltd.

Information relating to the case

>lt>12

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Kido Industrial Ltd to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 39, 42-45

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2008 (Case R 221/2007‑1) relating to opposition proceedings between mPAY24 GmbH and Ultra d.o.o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

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 30 September 2008 (Case R 221/2007‑1) in so far as that decision dismissed the opposition brought by mPAY24 GmbH;

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Surrender, revocation and invalidity

–

Absolute grounds of invalidity

–

Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(b), and (c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 31, 47-48, 61-66

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2008 (Case R 638/2007‑2) concerning invalidity proceedings between Interflon BV and Illinois Tool Works, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>13

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 3 March 2008 (Case R 638/2007‑2) in so far as it dismisses the appeal with regard to chemicals used in industry in Class 1, and industrial oils and greases and lubricants in Class 4;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Jurisdiction of the General Court provided for in the arbitration clause

(Art. 225 EC; Art. 140a EA; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

2. Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Jurisdiction of the General Court defined solely by Article 238 EC or by Article 153 EA and the arbitration clause

(Art. 238 EC; Art. 153 EA)

Summary

1. The Court’s jurisdiction is as laid down in Article 225 EC and Article 140a EA, as further specified by Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. Under those provisions, the Court has jurisdiction to rule on contractual disputes brought before it only by virtue of an arbitration clause. That jurisdiction, which is based on an arbitration clause, derogates from the ordinary rules of law and must therefore be given a restrictive interpretation.

(see para. 32)

2. The jurisdiction of the Courts of the European Union to determine, under an arbitration clause, a dispute concerning a contract falls to be determined solely with regard to Article 238 EC or Article 153 EA and the terms of the arbitration clause itself, and this cannot be affected by provisions of national law which allegedly exclude their jurisdiction. It follows that, although a contract which contains an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC or Article 153 EA is governed by national law as stipulated in that contract, the jurisdiction of the Courts of the Union is governed solely by the treaty in question and the stipulations of the arbitration clause itself and national law cannot preclude the jurisdiction of the Courts of the Union. This also holds true where the contract itself stipulates specific approval in writing.

(see paras 33, 37)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 25-26)

2. Budget of the European Communities – Community financial assistance – Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for granting the aid – Financing covering only expenses actually incurred – Proof of the reality of the expenses declared – None – Expenses ineligible (Art. 274 EC) (see paras 45, 67)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of the Commission's decision of 16 November 2007 concerning the Commission’s partial non-recognition of the costs incurred by the applicant in the context of Daphne Grant Agreement JAI/DAP/2004-2/052/W.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 16 November 2007 concerning its partial non-recognition of the costs incurred by Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV in the context of Daphne Grant Agreement JAI/DAP/2004-2/052/W in so far as concerns the expenses relating to items A6, A39, A40, A41, A43 and E41;

2. Orders Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung to bear two thirds of its own costs and two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission. The Commission is ordered to bear a third of its own costs and a third of the costs incurred by Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Informed user – Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 6(1)) (see paras 23-27)

2. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Representation of an internal combustion engine with the vent on the top (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 4(2), 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 38, 43, 45)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of 8 October 2007 of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1337/2006-3), relating to invalidity proceedings for Community designs between Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha and Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 January 2012 — Indo Internacional v OHIM — Visual (VISUAL MAP)

(Case T-260/08)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark VISUAL MAP — Earlier national word mark VISUAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now 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 25-30, 42-47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 (Case R 700/2007-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Visual SA and Indo Internacional, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Indo Internacional, SA to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 January 2012 — Indo Internacional v OHIM — Visual (VISUAL MAP)

(Case T-260/08)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark VISUAL MAP — Earlier national word mark VISUAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now 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 25-30, 42-47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 (Case R 700/2007-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Visual SA and Indo Internacional, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords



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 32, 62-67

)