ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 11-14)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word mark THE SPIRIT OF CUBA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 24-29)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries — Decisions not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 32)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (see paras 35, 36)

5. 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 — Exclusion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 39)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2013 (Case R 684/2012-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Havana Club International SA and 1872 Holdings vof.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders 1872 Holdings vof to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 23 September 2014 — Tegometall International v OHIM — Irega (MEGO)

(Case T‑11/13)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark MEGO — Relative ground for refusal — Earlier opposition proceedings — No application of the principle of res judicata’

1. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Action for cancellation — Relationship between a final decision on an opposition matter and an application for invalidity — Res judicata — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 53(4), and 100(2)) (see para. 12)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 15)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2012 (Case R 1522/2011-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Tegometall International AG and Irega AG.

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 25 October 2012 (Case R 1522/2011-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tegometall International AG before the General Court as well as the Board of Appeal.

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 23 September 2014 — Tegometall International v OHIM — Irega (MEGO)

(Case T‑11/13)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark MEGO — Relative ground for refusal — Earlier opposition proceedings — No application of the principle of res judicata’

1. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Action for cancellation — Relationship between a final decision on an opposition matter and an application for invalidity — Res judicata — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 53(4), and 100(2)) (see para. 12)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 15)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2012 (Case R 1522/2011-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Tegometall International AG and Irega AG.

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 25 October 2012 (Case R 1522/2011-1);
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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18-20)

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 — Word marks SKYSOFT and SKY (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23-26, 29-34, 36-40)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2013 (Case R 2503/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Sky IP International Ltd, on one side, and Skysoft Computersysteme GmbH, on the other.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Skysoft Computersysteme GmbH to pay the costs.
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 7 March 2013 (Case R 1565/2012‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Josep María Adell Argiles and Repsol, SA in so far as concerns the ‘industrial oils and greases; lubricants; fuels (including motor spirit)’ in Class 4 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;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 —

PP Nature-Balance Lizenz v Commission

(Case T‑189/13)

‛Medicinal products for human use — Active substance tolperisone — Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC — Commission decision ordering the Member States to vary the national marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use containing the active substance at issue — Burden of proof — Proportionality’

1. Approximation of laws — Medicinal products for human use — Authorization to market — Modification of the authorisation — Withdrawal and prohibition on marketing — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Arts 116 and 117) (see para. 34)

2. Approximation of laws — Medicinal products for human use — Authorization to market — Modification of the authorisation — Withdrawal and prohibition on marketing — Conditions — Evidential requirements — Need for new scientific data or information — Scope — Assessment of toxicity and effectiveness — Examination and reciprocal relationship — Evolutionary character (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Arts 116 and 117) (see paras 35-37, 41-43, 105)

3. Approximation of laws — Medicinal products for human use — Authorization to market — Modification of the authorisation — Withdrawal and prohibition on marketing — Opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use — Subject-matter — Judicial review — Limits (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Art. 31) (see paras 47, 52)

4. Approximation of laws — Medicinal products for human use — Authorization to market — Modification of the authorisation — Withdrawal and prohibition on marketing — Opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use — No obligation of consistency between the opinions of rapporteurs and co-rapporteurs — No obligation to take account of assessments by national authorities — Committee members not obliged to adopt unanimously (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 726/2004, Art. 61(7); European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Arts 31 and 32(2)) (see paras 78, 89, 91)

5. Approximation of laws — Medicinal products for human use — Authorization to market — Abridged procedure — Subject-matter (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Arts 8 and 10a) (see paras 100‑102)

6. Approximation of laws — Medicinal products for human use — Authorization to market — Modification of the authorisation — Withdrawal and prohibition on marketing — No infringement of the proportionality principle through failure to examine possibility of ordering a clinical study (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Arts 22a(1)(b), and 116) (see paras 111, 113, 114)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2013) 369 (final) of 21 January 2013 concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations for the medicinal products for human use which contain the active substance ‘tolperisone’.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Action dismissed on the merits without ruling on admissibility — Discretion of the Courts of the Union (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 39)

2. Education, professional training, youth and sport — Youth action programme — Adoption of a programme guide by the Commission implementing that action programme — Establishment of the criteria for benefiting from funds — Binding effect of the programme guide — Non-compliance with the ceiling attached to a certain category of actions within the programme in order to ensure efficient use of the funds granted — Not permissible — Maximum amount of financing for all the actions in the programme not exceeded — Irrelevant (European Parliament and Council Decision No 1719/2006, Art. 10; Commission Decisions C(2006) 4918 and C(2007) 1807, Arts 4 and 5) (see paras 45-51)

3. Education, professional training, youth and sport — Youth action programme — Grant of financing by the Commission — Sums improperly used by the final beneficiaries — Obligation of national agencies rigorously to implement procedures for recovering those sums — Waiver of recovery — Obligation to state reasons and justify the waiver by proof that the above-mentioned procedures have been complied with (European Parliament and Council Decision 1031/2000) (see paras 60-75)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, first, of the letter of the Commission Ares (2013) 237719 of 22 February 2013, addressed to the Agenzia nazionale per i giovani (National Youth Agency, Italy), which announces the issue of a debit note in respect of a total amount of EUR 1 486 485.90, in so far as that figure includes an amount of EUR 52 036.24 for expenses borne in respect of training activities relating to the European Voluntary Service and an amount of EUR 183 729.72, in respect of sums not recovered by the Agenzia nazionale per i giovani from the final beneficiaries as regards the period from 2000 to 2004, and, secondly, of the letter of the Commission Ares (2013) 267064 of 28 February 2013, addressed to the Dipartimento della gioventù e del servizio civile nazionale (Department for Youth and the national civil service, Italy), communicating the final evaluation conclusions from the declaration of assurance and the conclusions on the annual report of that agency in respect of 2011.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 December 2014 — Wilo v OHIM (Pioneering for You)

(Case T‑601/13)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Pioneering for You — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before OHIM bodies — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 65(2), and 76(1)) (see para. 12)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 18-21)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Inadmissibility (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark Pioneering for You (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 35, 36, 39, 40)

6. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Examination by the EU judicature — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 41, 42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 555/2013-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Pioneering for You as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 March 2015 — Braun Melsungen v OHIM (SafeSet)

(Case T‑513/13)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark SafeSet — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU — Logical statement of reasons (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 11, 12)

2. 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 — Concept — Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 29-31)

3. 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 — Word mark SafeSet (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 37-40)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see paras 44-46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 June 2013 (Case R 1598/2012‑1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark SafeSet as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 28 April 2015 —

Saferoad RRS v OHIM (MEGARAIL)

(Case T‑137/13)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark MEGARAIL — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 20)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 21, 22)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word mark MEGARAIL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 30-44, 47-56, 62-65)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (see paras 57-59)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2013 (Case R 2536/2011-4) relating to the application for registration of the word sign MEGARAIL as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 March 2015 — FSA v OHIM — Motokit Veículos e Acessórios (FSA K-FORCE)

(Case T‑558/13)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark FSA K-FORCE — Earlier Community word mark FORCE-X — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Declaratory judgments — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 14)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-21, 53)

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 28)

4. 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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31-33)

5. 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 FSA K-FORCE and FORCE-X (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 54-60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2013 (Case R 436/2012‑2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Motokit Veículos e Acessórios, SA and FSA Srl.

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 5 August 2013 (Case R 436/2012‑2);
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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 20, 54, 58)

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 — Figurative mark KAJMAN and figurative mark representing a crocodile (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 28, 30, 42, 46, 53, 57, 64)

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 29)

4. 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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 32)

5. Procedure — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — New plea — Concept — Analogous solution for claims raised in support of a plea (Rules of Procedure of the General Court (2015), Art. 84(1)) (see para. 86)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 May 2013 (Case R 2466/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Lacoste SA and Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses the applications for annulment and alteration submitted by Lacoste SA;

3. Orders Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna to pay all the costs relating to the action and to bear its own costs relating to the applications of Lacoste SA for annulment and alteration;

4. Orders Lacoste SA to bear its own costs relating to its applications for annulment and alteration.