ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
It is clear from Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark that a likelihood of confusion between two identical or similar marks can exist only within the limits of the principle of speciality, that is to say, where, regardless of the distinctive character which the earlier mark enjoys as a result of the awareness which the relevant public may have of it, the goods or services at issue are identical or similar in the eyes of that relevant public.

In assessing similarity between the goods or services in question within the meaning of Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, all the relevant factors relating to the way in which those goods or services are connected should be taken into account. Those factors include, in particular, their nature, their intended purpose, their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary.

Perfumery products, in themselves, cannot be regarded as similar to leather goods within Class 18 of the Nice Agreement and clothing within Class 25 of that agreement. They are clearly different from leather goods and clothing both as regards their nature, their purpose and their method of use. There is nothing, either, that enables them to be regarded as in competition with each other or complementary.

Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out, particularly in the fashion and body and facial care sectors, that goods whose nature, purpose and method of use are different, quite apart from being functionally complementary, may be aesthetically complementary in the eyes of the relevant public.

However, such aesthetic complementarity, which must involve a genuine aesthetic necessity, in that one product is indispensable or important for the use of the other and consumers consider it ordinary and natural to use these products together, is not enough to establish similarity, for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, between those goods. For that, the consumers must consider it normal that the goods are marketed under the same trade mark, which normally implies that a large number of producers or distributors of these products are the same.

The fact that the public is accustomed to fashion industry products being marketed under perfume trade marks cannot establish the existence of an aesthetically complementary connection between perfumery products on the one hand and leather goods and clothing on the other, so as to mean that one is indispensable or important for the use of the other and that consumers consider it ordinary and natural to use those goods together.

(see paras 29, 31, 32, 35-38)
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

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 36-37, 54

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2004 (Case R 108/2004-2), concerning an application for the registration of the word mark PURE DIGITAL as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Case T-358/04

Georg Neumann GmbH

v

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

‛Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark in the shape of a microphone head grill — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), 12 September 2007 II-3331

Summary of the Judgment

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))

A three-dimensional mark in the shape of a microphone head, characterised by a circular metal ring, a metal frame perpendicular to the metal ring, two wire mesh half heads opposite each other, going from the metal ring to the metal frame, and the flattening of the two half heads converging towards the tip of the head in the form of hyperbolic partial ellipses, registration of which is sought in respect of microphones, in particular studio microphones, condenser microphones, pressure-gradient microphones and their parts falling within Class 9 of the Nice Agreement, is devoid of distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

In so far as, apart from that flattening of the wire mesh, the applicant does not set out any characteristic of the shape forming the mark applied for which, taken alone or in combination with others, would allow the relevant public, composed of a narrow group of people who have a particular knowledge concerning microphones, to distinguish its products from products of other undertakings, it must be concluded that potential differences between the shape forming the mark applied for and other microphones, characterised by the flattening of the wire mesh in the shape of hyperbolic partial ellipses are not such as to attract the attention of the relevant public as an indicator of the origin of the products at issue where it is shown to the requisite legal standard that the relevant public is accustomed to the presence of microphone head grills having that characteristic, and therefore that that kind of microphone is part of the norm or customs of the market.

That conclusion cannot be called into question either by the fact that the relevant public is likely to have an increased level of attention in choosing the products at issue, when account is taken of the degree of similarity between the mark applied for and the other shapes present on the market, or by the fact that the shape of the microphone head grill comprising the mark applied for has no function of itself, or by the fact, assuming it to be established, that competing undertakings have been forced to give up producing or marketing products with an analogous shape to that comprising the mark applied for.

(see paras 49, 54-57, 61)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Obligation to implement (Arts 230 EC, 232 EC, 233 EC and 288, para. 2, EC) (see paras 39-41, 49-50)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Failure to fulfil the obligation to implement an annulling judgment (Art. 288, para. 2, EC) (see paras 57-58, 60-62)

3. Actions for damages – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Limitation period of five years (Art. 288, para. 2, EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 75, 77, 79-80)

Subject of the case

Re:

In Case T‑457/04, application, first, for annulment of the Commission's decision not to give effect to paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of 8 June 2000, Camar and Tico v Commission and Council (Joined Cases T‑79/96, T‑260/97 and T‑117/98 [2000] ECR II‑2193), contained in the letter of 10 September 2004, secondly, for an order that the Commission give effect to paragraph 1 of the operative part of the abovementioned judgment in Camar and Tico v Commission and Council by the financial equivalent of the value of the certificates that it has not issued and, thirdly, for an order that the Commission pay compensation for non-material loss, and in Case T‑223/05, application for an order that the Commission pay compensation, on the basis of the non-contractual liability of the European Community, for the loss which the applicant has suffered.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Commission contained in the letter of 10 September 2004 from the Director General of the Directorate General ‘Agriculture’ refusing to give effect to paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of 8 June 2000, Camar and Tico v Commission and Council (Joined Cases T‑79/96, T‑260/97 and T‑117/98 [2000] ECR II‑2193);

2. For the rest, dismisses the action in Case T‑457/04 as unfounded;

3. Dismisses the action in Case T‑223/05 as inadmissible;

4. In Case T‑457/04, orders Camar Srl and the Commission each to bear half of their own costs and to pay half of the costs of the other party;

5. In Case T‑223/05, orders Camar Srl to bear its own costs and to pay the Commission's costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Injury – Establishing of the causal link – Obligations of the institutions – Whether factors extraneous to dumping to be taken into account – Abolition of previous anti-dumping duties and ordinary customs duties under the system of generalised tariff preferences – Included (Agreement on the implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, ‘1994 Anti-dumping Code’, Art. 3.5; Council Regulations No 384/96, Art. 3(6) and (7), and No 1225/2009, Art. 3(6) and (7)) (see paras 53, 55-61, 68-69, 83)

2. European Union law – Interpretation – Methods – Interpretation having regard to international agreements concluded by the Community – Interpretation of Regulation No 384/96 having regard to the 1994 GATT anti-dumping Code (Agreement on the implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, ‘1994 Anti-dumping Code’; Council Regulation No 384/96) (see para. 54)

3. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Injury – Establishing of the causal link – Obligations of the institutions – Whether factors extraneous to dumping to be taken into account – Need for overall analysis (Council Regulations No 384/96, Arts 3(6) and (7), and 17(3), and No 1225/2009) (see paras 75-81)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan (OJ 2004 L 66, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan in so far as it concerns Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 14 December 2005 − Arysta Lifescience v OHIM – BASF (CARPOVIRUSINE)

(Case T-169/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark CARPOVIRUSINE – Former national word mark CARPO – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 CARPOVIRUSINE and CARPO (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 71-72)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 March 2004 (Case R 289/2003-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Calliope SAS and BASF AG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Arysta Lifescience SAS Community trade mark sought: Word mark ‘CARPOVIRUSINE’ – Application No 1422641, for goods in Class 5 (insecticides, etc.) Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: BASF AG Mark or sign sited in opposition: National and international word mark ‘CARPO’ for goods in Class 5 Decision of the Opposition Division: Refusal to register Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the action





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 13 July 2006 – Italy v Commission

(Case T-225/04)

Structural Funds – Financing of Community initiatives – Amendment of indicative allocations – Enforcement of the final judgment – Judgment annulling an act

1. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing (Council Regulation No 2052/88, Art. 12(4)) (see paras 67-77)

2. Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling act – Effects (Art. 233 EC) (see paras 89-94)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 145-155)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 3971 final of 26 November 2003 establishing indicative allocations between the Member States of the commitment appropriations under Community initiatives for the period 1994-1999 and of all related prior measures.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2006 – Belgium v Commission

(Case T-221/04)

EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Arable crops – Check on areas based on a system of aerial orthoimagery (GIS) – Difference between the area declared and the area resulting from the GIS system – Administrative check and inspection on site – Loss to EAGGF

1. Court of Justice – Court of First Instance – Unlimited jurisdiction – Exercise in the context of an action for annulment (Arts 229 EC and 230 EC) (see paras 27-28)

2. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Council Regulation No 729/70) (see paras 30-33, 82-92)

3. Agriculture – EAGGF – Grant of aids and premiums (Council Regulations Nos 729/70 and 3508/92; Commission Regulation No 3887/92) (see paras 52-57)

Re:

APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 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 2004 L 40, p. 31), in so far as it imposes a flat-rate correction of 2% of the expenses declared by Belgium in respect of arable crops.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

8 February 2007

Case T-318/04

Vladimir Boucek

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Officials – Open competition – Non‑admission to the written tests – Late submission of application)

Application: for annulment of the decision of the selection board in open competition EPSO/A/2/03 refusing the applicant admittance to the written test of the competition on the ground that he had not submitted his complete application within the time-limit prescribed.

Held: The action is dismissed. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

1. Officials – Competitions – Organisation – Conditions for admission and arrangements

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Arts 2 and 5)

2. Officials – Competitions – Notice of competition

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Arts 1(1)(h) and 2)

1. The failure to notify candidates in a competition, by email, of the results of their preselection tests and of a request to complete their application does not constitute an irregularity which infringes the principle of sound administration where the persons concerned have been adequately informed both regarding the fact that the results and the request would be communicated to them through their personal file on the website of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), which they were required to consult regularly, and regarding the period within which that communication would be made.

In that context, a period of three weeks granted to candidates to enable them to take note of the information in question on the EPSO website and to complete and send their application cannot be regarded as inadequate.

(see paras 42, 46)

2. Article 1(1)(h) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, which states that the notice of competition must specify the closing date for applications, does not require that notice to lay down time-limits for the submission of applications and of supporting documents completing applications in the case of competitions in which those documents are to be sent and the conditions for admission checked only after the preselection phase. Those documents are solely intended to complete the application submitted at the time when it is registered.

(see paras 59-61)

See: T‑207/02 Falcone v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑305 and II‑1393, para. 41
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 17 January 2007 – Georgia-Pacific v OHIM (Embossed motif)

(Case T-283/04)

Community trade mark – Three-dimensional mark – Embossed motif – Refusal of registration – Distinctiveness – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 52-56)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the first Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 May 2004 (Case R 493/2003‑1) regarding registration of a three-dimensional mark consisting of an embossed motif.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Georgia-Pacific Sàrl Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional mark in the form of a kitchen-paper motif for goods in Class 16 – Application No 2101277 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 September 2007 – Commission v Trends

(Case T-448/04)

Arbitration clause – Fourth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration – Contracts involving projects in the field of telematics applications of common interest – Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements for part of the declared expenses – Reimbursement of the sums paid

1. Procedure – Time-limit for producing evidence (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(1) and 66(2)) (see paras 52, 56)

2. Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC; European Parliament and Council Decision No 1110/94; Council Decision 94/801) (see paras 63-64, 91-94)

Re:

APPLICATION by the Commission under an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC seeking an order that Trends reimburse the Commission in the sum of EUR 48 046 plus contractual interest or, in the alternative, plus default interest.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the interlocutory application;

2. Orders Transport Environment Development Systems (Trends) to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 48 046 plus default interest at the rate of 5.5% per annum from 1 January 1999 until payment in full of the sum owed;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 March 2008 – Sebirán v OHIM – El Coto de Rioja (Coto D’Arcis)

(Case T-332/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark Coto D’Arcis – Earlier Community word marks EL COTO and COTO DE IMAZ – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – No damage to reputation – Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 45, 53)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2004 (Case R 550/2003-2) concerning opposition proceedings between El Coto de Rioja SA and Sebirán SL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Sebirán, SL Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Coto D’Arcis for goods in Classes 32 and 33 – Application No 1558113 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: El Coto de Rioja, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word marks EL COTO (No 339408) and COTO DE IMAZ (No 339333) in Classes 29, 32 and 33; International mark No 442377; and Spanish marks Nos 877219, 907966, 907967, 907985, 907989, 907993, 907994, 907995, 983888, 1290986, 1614514, 1758975 and 2172691 Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the registration Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division, registration of the mark refused for goods in Classes 32 and 33





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses the application of El Coto de Rioja SA for the partial annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 June 2004 (Case R 550/2003-2);

3. Orders Sebirán SL to pay its own costs and those of OHIM and one half of the costs of El Coto de Rioja SA;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2011 – Arch Chemicals and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-75/04 and T-77/04 to T-79/04)

Actions for annulment – Health policy – Placing on the market of biocidal products – Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Possibility of being individually concerned by a general decision – Conditions – Commission regulation designed to establish the rules for applying the work programme for examining all existing active substances – Action brought by producers of active substances – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 2032/2003) (see paras 47-51, 57-59, 62-63)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Article 3, Article 4(2), Article 5(3), the second subparagraph of Article 10(2), Article 11(3), Article 13, Article 14(2) of and Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (OJ 2003 L 307, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Arch Chemicals, Inc., Arch Timber Protection Ltd, Rhodia UK Ltd, Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc and Troy Chemical Co. BV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission including, in the case of Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc, those relating to the application for interim relief;
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 36-39, 41

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 June 2005 (Case R 1145/2004-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Terra Networks, SA and Carsten Brinkmann.

Information relating to the case

>lt>10

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.