ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — Poslovni Sistem Mercator v OHIM – Mercator Multihull (MERCATOR STUDIOS)

(Case T-417/09)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MERCATOR STUDIOS — Earlier national and international figurative marks Mercator and Mercator Slovenska košarica — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No injury to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1031/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Poslovni Sistem Mercator d.d. and Mercator Multihull, Inc.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
54

The Commission submits that this assessment is consistent with the spirit of Directive 2003/87 — especially Article 9(1) under which NAPs must comply with the criteria in Annex III, in particular criteria 5 and 6 concerning the prohibition of discrimination between undertakings and the obligation to ensure that new entrants have access to the trading scheme. The Commission submits in this connection that the argument concerning the differentiation between ‘first-tier’ new entrants, to which alone the rules of section 5 of the Belgian NAP apply, and ‘second-tier’ new entrants, which are subject to a supplementary allocation rule, namely allocation ‘as and when the reserve is supplied’, cannot succeed as the general rules of that section must apply to all new entrants, including ‘second-tier’ new entrants. Indeed, according to the Commission, if the reserve is not sufficient to enable allowances to be granted to ‘second-tier’ new entrants and it is not resupplied, those new entrants, pursuant to the ‘first come, first served’ rule, do not receive any allowances. The Commission draws the conclusion that, in accordance with the rule that allowances are to be allocated for the whole of the period from 2008 to 2012, a ‘second-tier’ new entrant, such as installation No 116, must be granted allowances for the years 2008 to 2012, and not for just one or two years. The number of allowances to be granted must therefore be determined in advance for the whole of that period — and not annually and in the exercise of discretion — in the amount of the existing number of allowances in the resupplied reserve, in accordance with the rule prohibiting the use of the reserve to make ex-post adjustments to the initial allocation received by the installations concerned. Thus, in the present instance, only 700000 allowances were available for installation No 116 for the whole of that period.
61

It must be pointed out in that respect that, as the applicant essentially –and rightly – claims, besides the decrease of the Community industry’s market share, the economic factors referred to above are all positive and, on the whole, paint a picture of an industry in a situation of strength, not of fragility or vulnerability. Moreover, the Commission itself indicated in recital 88 of the provisional regulation that ‘any injury suffered by the Community industry [had been] limited and [had] not led to any significant economic problem’. That finding shows that, in the context of the situation of the Community market during the period considered – i.e. until the end of the investigation period –, the Community industry was not in a vulnerable situation, that is to say, liable to suffer injury as a result of imports originating in China. The finding, pointed out by the Council in its written pleadings, that the Community industry’s market share decreased by a few percentage points during the period considered is not sufficient by itself to support the conclusion that the Community industry was in a vulnerable situation at the end of the investigation period. Moreover, that finding must be considered in the light of the fact that the Community industry had a significant market share during the investigation period, namely 63.6%, and that its sales had grown strongly, by more than 14%, during the period considered. It must also be considered in the light of the fact that non-dumped imports from other countries had increased in volume by 35% during the period considered (recital 142 of the provisional regulation) and that the market share corresponding to those imports had increased from 7.8% to 8.5%. Therefore, in view of all of those factors, it must be found that the institutions’ conclusion that the Community industry was in a vulnerable situation at the end of the investigation period was not supported by the relevant economic data in the present case (similarly, with other economic data, Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council [1995] ECR II-1381, paragraphs 95 and 96).
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

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

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25-26, 45, 52

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2010 (Case R 767/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales SL and DTL Corporación SL.

Information relating to the case

>lt>19

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders DTL Corporación SL to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

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

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-20, 44

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2010 (Case R 874/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Nycomed GmbH and ratiopharm GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ratiopharm GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical earlier mark registered for identical goods and services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(a)) (see paras 37, 48)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical earlier or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 57)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 November 2009 (Case R 86/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Jesús Delgado Sánchez and Flaco Geräte GmbH.

Information relating to the case

>lt>15

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Flaco-Geräte GmbH to pay the costs.
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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23, 27-29)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see paras 39-41)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 December 2009 (Case R 968/2009‑2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark PIPELINE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Chestnut Medical Technologies, Inc. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

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

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 31-35, 44-49

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2010 (Case R 63/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co KG and TofuTown.com GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 January 2010 (Case R 63/2009-4);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and those incurred by Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co KG;

3. Orders TofuTown.com GmbH to bear its own costs.
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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 31-33

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 April 2010 (Case R 1259/2009‑1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign TENNIS WAREHOUSE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sports Warehouse GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

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

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28-29, 54-56

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1165/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Chalou GmbH and Chickmouza Chabou.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Chickmouza Chabou to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2012 — Hamberger Industriewerke v OHIM (Atrium)

(Case T-513/10)

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

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 15-20)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 August 2010 (Case R 291/2010-4), concerning an application for registration of the word mark Atrium as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hamberger Industriewerke GmbH to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2012 — Hamberger Industriewerke v OHIM (Atrium)

(Case T-513/10)

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

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 15-20)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 August 2010 (Case R 291/2010-4), concerning an application for registration of the word mark Atrium as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23-24, 26-27, 35

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2010 (Case R 570/2010‑1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Vorfront as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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



Keywords

Community trade mark

—

Surrender, revocation and invalidity

—

Relative grounds for invalidity

—

Existence of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 73, 76, 106‑110

)
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Meaning (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 21‑26)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 48, 78, 79)
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark

—

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

—

Relative grounds for refusal

—

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

—

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39-42, 59-63

)
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark

—

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

—

Relative grounds for refusal

—

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

—

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 27, 28, 43, 51, 52, 71, 78, 83

)
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 67, 68)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 73‑75)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part

Keywords Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 51, 74 ) Subject of the case Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the First Chamber of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2010 (Case R 774/2010‑1) relating to opposition proceedings between Atos Worldline SA and Aitic Penteo, SA. Operative part Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Aitic Penteo, SA to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2012 — Aitic Penteo v OHIM — Atos Worldline (PENTEO)

(Case T-585/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PENTEO — Earlier Benelux and international word marks XENTEO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009’

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 51, 74)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Chamber of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2010 (Case R 774/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Atos Worldline SA and Aitic Penteo, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 67, 68)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 73‑75)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2010 (Case R 1172/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Conceria Kara Srl and Dima — Gida Tekstil Deri Insaat Maden Turizm Orman Urünleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret Ltd Sti.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Conceria Kara Srl to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2012 — H.Eich v OHIM — Arav (H.EICH)

(Case T-557/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark H.EICH — Earlier national figurative mark H SILVIAN HEACH — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Verbal mark H.EICH and figurative mark H SILVIAN HEACH (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21-23, 70, 91)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2010 (Case R 1411/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Arav Holding Srl and H.Eich Srl.

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 9 September 2010 (Case R 1411/2009-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by H.Eich Srl in the proceedings before the General Court;

3. Orders OHIM to pay the costs necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2012 — MIP Metro v OHIM — J.C. Ribeiro (MISS B)

(Case T-485/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MISS B — Earlier national word mark miss H — Earlier international word mark Miss H — Earlier national and international figurative marks Miss H. — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. 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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-21, 48)

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 mark MISS B — Word marks miss H and Miss H and figurative marks Miss H. (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23, 47, 49)

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 — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 25)

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 — Possibility of a similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 26)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Elements of a trade mark having a descriptive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 27)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2010 (Case R 1526/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and J.C. Ribeiro, SGPS, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by OHIM;