ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



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 a product – Word sign ‘LIMO’

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c))

Summary

The word sign LIMO, in respect of which registration is sought for goods in Classes 9 and 10 under the Nice Agreement which include, in particular, lasers for non‑medical and for medical purposes, may serve to designate, for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94, one of the essential characteristics of the goods referred to in the trade mark application from the point of view of the relevant public which must be deemed to be composed of specialists, who are well‑informed, observant and circumspect. The specialist consumer will be in a position to establish a sufficiently direct and specific link between the goods covered and the sign and will perceive that sign as the abbreviation for ‘Laser Intensity Modulation’ and as referring, at the very least, to one of the possible intended purposes of those goods, namely as part of a laser intensity modulation system.

(see paras 28, 45)
Keywords

Summary



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 – Possession by the trade mark applicant of a national mark identical to the one applied for and preceding the opponent’s national mark – Effect

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

Summary

In the context of opposition proceedings brought against registration of a Community mark pursuant to Article 42 et seq. of Regulation No 40/94, the mere possession by the Community trade mark applicant of a national mark which precedes the opponent’s national mark and is identical to the Community mark applied for is not sufficient reason for rejecting the opposition. The applicant must also prove that it has been successful in having the opponent’s national mark cancelled by the competent national authorities.

The validity of a national trade mark may not be called in question in proceedings for registration of a Community trade mark, but only in cancellation proceedings brought in the Member State concerned. Moreover, although it is for the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to ascertain, on the basis of evidence which it is up to the opponent to produce, the existence of the national mark relied on in support of the opposition, it is not for it to rule on a conflict between that mark and another mark at national level, such a conflict falling within the competence of the national authorities.

(see paras 25-26)
Case T-286/02





Oriental Kitchen SARL

v

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





«(Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark KIAP MOU – Earlier national word marks MOU – Refusal to register)»

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 25 November 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Assertion by the applicant for a trade mark facing opposition that he intends to use it for only some of the products referred to in the application – Not necessary to take into account

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

2.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the marks concerned – Assessment criteria – Word mark consisting of two words

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

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

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

1.

2.

3.
Case T-117/02

Grupo El Prado Cervera, SL

v

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

(Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark ‘CHUFAFIT’ – Earlier national word and figurative marks ‘CHUFI’ – Likelihood of confusion – Likelihood of association – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), 6 July 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the holder of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Complex mark containing an element descriptive of the goods covered – Target public’s perception of that element as such and not as an element enabling the commercial origin of the goods to be distinguished

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

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the holder of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word mark ‘CHUFAFIT’ and verbal and figurative marks containing the word ‘CHUFI’

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

1. In assessing the likelihood of confusion for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, account must be taken of the fact that the target public will not generally consider a descriptive element of the goods designated by a complex mark as the distinctive and dominant element of the overall impression conveyed by that mark enabling the commercial origin of the goods covered to be distinguished.

(see paras 51, 53)

2. For the Spanish public there is no likelihood of confusion between, on the one hand, the word sign CHUFAFIT, registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought for ‘processed nuts’ and ‘fresh nuts’ in Classes 29 and 31 of the Nice Agreement, and, on the other hand, the word mark CHUFI and the figurative mark containing that verbal element registered earlier in Spain to designate a range of goods in the same classes of the Nice Agreement since, even if the goods covered by the competing signs are identical, the visual and phonetic differences between those signs are sufficient to rule out the existence of that likelihood, so that one of the conditions for the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 is not satisfied.

(see paras 54, 60)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Mark CONFORFLEX and figurative marks including the term flex — (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

Summary

For the Spanish public, there is a likelihood of confusion between the word mark " CONFORFLEX" , in respect of which registration was sought as a Community trade mark for " bedroom furniture" falling within Class 20 of the Nice Agreement, and two figurative marks including the word element " flex" , registered earlier in Spain for all sorts of furniture, including bedroom furniture, falling within the same class.

Whilst, from the point of view of the public concerned, the term " flex" may indeed be regarded as evocative of a characteristic of the goods in question, namely flexibility, the earlier marks do not, on that account, have a highly distinctive character; given that the factors relevant to the assessment of whether there is a likelihood of confusion are interdependent, the fact that the designated products are identical, coupled with the fact that the opposed signs are conceptually very similar, is sufficient for a finding that there is such a likelihood.

see paras 56, 58, 62
Keywords

Summary



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 – Figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Biker Miles’ and word mark MILES

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

Summary

There is, for the average consumer in the European Union, a likelihood of confusion between the figurative sign made up of two words written in bold, ‘biker’ and ‘miles’, as well as figurative elements, in particular the image of a road with a circle round it, for which registration as a Community trade mark has been applied in respect of ‘equipment and clothing for riders of two-wheeled vehicles, namely boots, shoes, gloves, scarves, rainwear, weather protection clothing, pullovers, helmets, kidney protectors, leather clothing, imitation leather clothing’ in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement, and the word mark MILES registered previously as a Community trade mark for ‘clothing, including sportswear’ in the same class, because, first, the goods at issue are identical, those in respect of which registration is sought being included in the category of goods covered by the earlier mark and, secondly, the conflicting signs are similar as the figurative elements do not, from a visual point of view, occupy a position equivalent to that of the verbal elements and, in respect of the latter, the verbal element ‘miles’, which is identical to the earlier mark, must be considered to be the dominant element of the mark applied for and the verbal element ‘biker’, even though it adds a certain nuance, is not of importance on a conceptual level.

(see paras 26, 37, 42, 45, 48, 53)
Keywords

Summary



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 – Word marks TRAVATAN and TRIVASTAN

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

Summary

For end users, doctors and Italian pharmacists, there is a likelihood of confusion, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, between the word sign TRAVATAN, registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought in respect of ‘Ophthalmic pharmaceutical preparations’ in Class 5 of the Nice Agreement and the word mark TRIVASTAN, registered previously in Italy in respect of a ‘peripheral vasodilator intended to treat peripheral and cerebral vascular disturbance and vascular disorders of the eye and ear’ in the same class.

First, since the product covered by the earlier mark may be used for the treatment of vascular disorders of the eye, even if that product is intended for the general treatment of vascular problems, it must be regarded as analogous to an ophthalmic pharmaceutical product, since in both instances, the treatment of eye disorders is involved. Second, there is significant visual similarity and a phonetic similarity between the conflicting signs.

(see paras 60, 75-76)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Proprietary medicinal products – Marketing authorisation

(Art. 5, first para., EC; Directive 2001/83 of the European Parliament and the Council, Art. 30; Council Directive 75/319, Art. 11)

Summary

Article 11 of Directive 75/319 relating to proprietary medicinal products, corresponding to Article 30 of the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (the HUM code), which lays down a procedure that may be set in motion when Member States adopt divergent decisions concerning marketing authorisation or its suspension or withdrawal, applies only to purely national marketing authorisations. Consequently, at the end of such a procedure, the Commission is not competent to take a binding decision such as a decision ordering the summary of product characteristics to be amended.

Article 11 is not one of the provisions providing the framework for the mutual recognition procedure which constitutes a binding mechanism; it merely provides a consultative procedure intended to make it easier for the Member States to adopt common decisions in the sphere of their exclusive competence in respect of purely national marketing authorisations and in the case of divergent decisions.

In that regard, the HUM code, even though it seeks to protect public health by means that do not hinder the development of the industry or trade in medicinal products between Member States, cannot for all that, in the absence of express provisions to that effect and having regard to the principle set out in the first paragraph of Article 5 EC that the Community is to act within the limits of the powers conferred on it, deprive the Member States of their exclusive competence as regards authorisations granted under purely national procedures. Thus, in the absence of such express provisions, Article 30 HUM is to be understood not to affect the Member States’ exclusive competence but rather to be intended, by means of the consultative procedure which it makes it possible to implement, at Community level, to guide the exercise of the various national competences in a common direction.

(see paras 80, 85, 87, 90)
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 well known in a Member State (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 28)

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 enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 50-52)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2003 (Case R 369/2002-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG and Conceria Toska Srl.

Information relating to the case

>lt>9

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to act – Failure remedied after commencement of proceedings – Subject-matter of the action ceasing to exist – No need to adjudicate (Arts 232 EC and 233 EC) (see paras 34-39)

2. Actions for damages – Subject-matter – Application for damages suffered by reason of a failure to act on the part of a Community institution (Art. 235 EC) (see paras 45-48)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for, first, a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 March 2002 in Case T-241/00 Le Canne v Commission [2002] ECR II-1251 and, secondly, damages for the loss alleged to have resulted from that failure

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim alleging failure to act;

2. Dismisses the claim for compensation;

3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 20, 46-47)

2. Officials – Rights and obligations – Acts liable to reflect on official’s position – Scope (Staff Regulations, Art. 12, first para.) (see para. 33)

3. Officials – Rights and obligations – Acts liable to reflect on official’s position (Staff Regulations, Art. 12, first para.) (see paras 37-39)

4. European Communities – Institutions – Obligations – Preservation of professional secrecy – Scope (Art. 287 EC) (see paras 40-45)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for damages for harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of statements made by the Commission’s agent in Marseille at a meeting on 23 January 2003.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders Maison de l’Europe Avignon Méditerranée to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Need for an actual and current interest (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 58, 72)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision declaring a State aid scheme imcompatible with the common market and making provision for a transitional scheme – Action brought by an undertaking excluded from the transitional scheme – Admissibility – Conditions (Arts 87(1) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 93-96, 100)

3. State aid – Compatibility of aid with the common market – Possible legitimate expectation of the persons concerned – Protection – Conditions and limits (Art. 88(2), first para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 7) (see paras 132-135)

4. State aid – Commission decision declaring a State aid scheme incompatible with the common market and making provision for a transitional scheme – No transitional measures in favour of operators who made an aid application which was still pending at the time the Commission adopted its decision to open the formal investigation procedure – Operators’ right to place a legitimate expectation in the granting of a reasonable transitional period (Art. 88(2), first para., EC) (see paras 138, 149-150)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities (OJ 2003 L 180, p. 52) in so far as it excludes from the transitional scheme those operators who, as at 11 July 2001, had lodged a request with the Netherlands tax authority for application of the aid scheme in question but whose request had not yet been determined by that date.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities in so far as it excludes from the transitional scheme which it lays down those operators who, as at 11 July 2001, had lodged a request with the Netherlands tax authority for application of the aid scheme in question but whose request had not yet been determined by that date;

2. Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
Case T-33/03

Osotspa Co. Ltd

v

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

(Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Earlier national and Community figurative SHARK marks – Application for Community word mark Hai – Absolute ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 9 March 2005

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 – Word sign Hai and figurative SHARK marks

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

There is no likelihood of confusion, as regards the average consumer in the European Union and in Austria in particular, between the word mark Hai, for which registration as a Community trade mark was sought inter alia for goods in Classes 5, 32 and 33 within the meaning of the Nice Agreement, and the figurative SHARK marks with special graphics the letters of which have stylised characters so that the whole of the sign calls to mind the form of a shark, which were previously registered in Austria and as a Community trade mark for identical or similar goods, namely ‘non-alcoholic drinks; syrups and other preparations for making beverages’ in Class 32 of that agreement, since, as it has been stated that the earlier marks have a distinctive character per se, the significant visual and aural differences between the marks in question are such as to cancel out, to a large extent, their conceptual similarity which depends on prior translation, so that the degree of similarity between those marks is not sufficiently great for the Court to make a finding that the public might believe that the goods in question come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from undertakings which are economically linked.

(see paras 38, 46, 60, 62, 64-65)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2005 − Gillette v OHIM – Wilkinson Sword (RIGHT GUARD XTREME sport)

(Case T‑286/03)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark RIGHT GUARD XTREME sport – Earlier national figurative mark WILKINSON SWORD XTREME III – Likelihood of confusion – Refusal of registration – 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 – Figurative marks ‘RIGHT GUARD XTREME sport’ and ‘WILKINSON SWORD XTREME III’ (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 81-82)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 April 2003 (Case R 221/2002-4), refusing registration of the figurative mark RIGHT GUARD XTREME sport.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The Gillette Company Community trade mark sought: The figurative mark ‘RIGHT GUARD XTREME sport’ for goods in Class 3 – Application No 1486745 Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Wilkinson Sword GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: German figurative marks ‘WILKINSON SWORD XTREME III’ for goods in Class 3 Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and refusal of the applicant’s application





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;