ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 20, 21)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 26, 27)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks AAVA MOBILE and JAVA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 28, 64, 70)

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 — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 34)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 76)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1205/2011‑2) of 9 October 2012, concerning opposition proceedings between Oracle America, Inc. and Aava Mobile Oy.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Oracle America, Inc. to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 2014 —

Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM (NOTFALL CREME)

(Case T‑504/12)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative trade mark NOTFALL CREME — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment’

1. 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 — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 15)

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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16-18, 22)

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 — Figurative mark NOTFALL CREME (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23-29)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Overlap between the scope of the grounds for refusal set out in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see para. 35)

5. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2012 (Case R 271/2012‑4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign NOTFALL CREME as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
2.

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 documents — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 17)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2015 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO)

(Case T‑393/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark KENZO — Earlier Community word mark KENZO — Relative ground for refusal — Reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Late submission of documents — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) 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 (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 18, 19)

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 — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Use of the trade mark sought without just grounds — Name or forename of the applicant — No just grounds (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 20, 21)

3. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 20(1), and 50(1)) (see paras 26-28, 35)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 52)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Word marks KENZO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 53-58)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2012 (Case R 1659/2011-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Kenzo and Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 — Genuine use — Concept — Interpretation having regard to the rationale of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 22)

2. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 24-28)

3. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Partial use — Effect — Concept of ‘part of goods or services’ concerned by registration (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 47)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2012 (Case R 1981/2010-2) concerning opposition proceedings between A Colmeia do Minho Ldª and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

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 2 April 2012 (Case R 1981/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between A Colmeia do Minho Ldª and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG, in that it found that genuine use of the earlier marks had been demonstrated to the requisite legal standard;

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Lidl Stiftung & Co.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 March 2015 — IDT Biologika v Commission

(Case T‑30/12)

‛Public supply contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply to Serbia of anti-rabies vaccines — Rejection of a tender — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Selection criteria — Manifest error of assessment’

EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (see paras 20, 21)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 5 October 2011 (OJ 2011/S 222‑359832) awarding the contract in the call for tenders EuropeAid/130686/C/SUP/RS for the supply of rabies vaccines for vaccination campaigns in Serbia to the consortium directed by the company Bioveta a.s. and rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2016 —

El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — English Cut (The English Cut)

(Case T‑515/12 RENV)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark The English Cut — Earlier EU figurative and national word marks El Corte Inglés — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Reputation’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 29, 30)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Word mark The English Cut — Word and figurative marks El Corte Inglés (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 32-34, 52, 56)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Aim — Proof to be adduced by proprietor — Future, non-hypothetical risk of unfair advantage or damage (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 37, 54)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Link between the marks — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 38-40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2012 (Case R 1673/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés and The English Cut.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
151

In the circumstances of the present case, that period seems to be excessive. While it is not apparent from the file that the importance of the case for the applicants, who are not food business operators (see paragraph 1 above), was very great, the fact none the less remains that, after the applicants enquired on 29 February 2008 about the state of their application and after the application had been re-sent by letter of 10 March 2008, the Bundesamt, after acknowledging receipt by letter of 8 May 2008, merely drew the applicants’ attention to the adoption of Regulation No 353/2008 and asked them to re-submit their application using the forms published by EFSA, by letter of 21 July 2008 (see paragraphs 3 to 7 above). Furthermore, although it is appropriate to take account of the fact that the Commission asked the Bundesamt to forward only valid applications to EFSA and of the fact that responsibility for the existence of a valid application is borne at least equally by the Bundesamt under Regulation No 1924/2006, as already stated (see paragraph 136 above), it must be borne in mind that Article 15(2)(a)(i) and (ii), Article 16(1) and Article 17(1) of that regulation prescribe time-limits for the stages in the authorisation procedure in question. Thus, the national authority must acknowledge receipt of an application within 14 days of its receipt and inform EFSA without delay; EFSA must, in principle, give its opinion within five months; and the Commission must submit to the Committee a draft decision on the lists of permitted health claims within two months after receiving EFSA’s opinion. It follows from the structure of those provisions that examination of the validity of an application by the national authority cannot in any event last seven months. Consequently, the period necessary for the Bundesamt to forward the applicants’ application to EFSA does not seem reasonable.
108

Contrary to the applicants’ claims, that deterrent effect is all the more important in the case of electronic files since, having regard to their particular nature, they are much easier and quicker to manipulate than paper files. Even if, as the applicants have argued, the deletion of electronic files in an e-mail account is not always irreversible since they may be recovered through other IT media – which indeed is also possible for certain physical documents which have been shredded – it cannot, however, be denied that the ease with which they may be manipulated poses particular difficulties for the effectiveness of an inspection. Paper files, when seized by the inspectors, remain physically under their control for the duration of the inspection. By contrast, electronic files may be quickly concealed even in the presence of the inspectors. Those inspectors do not therefore know whether they have access to electronic data that are complete and intact. In the present case, when the inspectors were checking the e-mail account of Mr J. that was allegedly blocked, they did not know that the incoming e-mails had been diverted to the server until the last day of the inspection. The Commission did not therefore err in finding, in recital 87 of the contested decision, that when an undertaking does not adhere to the inspectors’ instructions, according to which e‑mail accounts must be inaccessible to their account holders and fully accessible to the inspectors for the duration of the inspection, such non-adherence amounts by its very nature to a serious infringement of the procedural obligations of undertakings during an inspection.
104

As regards the supposedly unexpected ceiling of EUR 10 million placed on the Union’s financial participation, it is true that the ceiling was presented on 27 March 2012, a few days before the Management Committee’s vote of 3 April 2012 on Implementing Regulation No 302/2012. However, the draft amendment to the rules on the Union’s financial participation had been the subject of consultations and discussions with the Polish authorities and the other Member States since September 2011 and the adoption of the draft amendment had been suspended after the Management Committee’s vote of 19 October 2011. It is therefore not surprising that the Commission decided to adopt the second draft amendment after the vote on that draft on 3 April 2012, when it had, moreover, emphasised the importance of adopting that draft expeditiously at the meeting of the Management Committee on 29 March 2012. Furthermore, Article 5(4) of Regulation No 182/2011 provides that the Commission may adopt the draft implementing act where the Management Committee does not deliver an opinion. The adoption is not subject to any waiting period whatsoever. It is also clear from the draft amendments that the Commission was planning for a prompt entry into force of the proposed amendments to Implementing Regulation No 543/2011 after their adoption. In the first draft amendment, the entry into force of those amendments was set at the seventh day following publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and, in the second draft amendment, the entry into force of those amendments was set at the day of publication in the Official Journal. The Republic of Poland, in full knowledge of those rules and having taken part in the work of the Management Committee, cannot validly claim that the Commission acted by surprise, presenting the Member States with a fait accompli without consulting them.
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 15, 16)

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 4711 Aqua Mirabilis and AQUA ADMIRABILIS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 25-33, 39)

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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22-24)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 38)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2012 (Case R 1601/2011‑2) relating to opposition proceedings between Sacra Srl and Mäurer & Wirtz GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mäurer & Wirtz GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
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 — Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 39)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 (Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 18, 19)

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 28, 29, 56, 57)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks METABIOMAX and metabiarex (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30-32, 52-54, 58-60)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 March 2013 (Case R 2022/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between meta Fackler Arzneimittel GmbH and Ms Sofia Golam.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Sofia Golam to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 2014 —

Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Healing Herbs (NOTFALL)

(Case T‑188/13)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark NOTFALL — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment’

1. 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 20, 25)

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 — Word mark NOTFALL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23, 24, 26-30)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the various grounds for refusal — Overlap between the scope of the grounds for refusal set out in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see para. 35)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2013 (Case R 132/2012-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Healing Herbs Ltd and Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;