ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
90

The Kingdom of Spain complains that the Commission treated it unequally in relation to Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in spite of the existence of comparable situations. In that regard, it notes that recital 7 in the preamble to the contested regulation states, first, the risk of disproportionate socio-economic consequences for both the fishing sector concerned and the associated processing industry, and, second, the consequent need to apply the deductions over a period of 5 years, from 2011 to 2015 and, also the possibility of making new deductions, if necessary, for subsequent years. The criterion of the risk of socio-economic consequences was also taken into account previously, at the time of the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 147/2007 of 15 February 2007 adapting certain fish quotas from 2007 to 2012 pursuant to Article 23(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2007 L 46, p. 10), concerning deductions from the mackerel quotas allocated to Ireland and to the United Kingdom, which were limited to 15% of the annual quota. However, in the contested regulation, in spite of similar reasoning and of the existence of a comparable situation, the Commission did not apply that same limit, but an annual deduction percentage of over 15%, which is an unjustified discrimination. The Kingdom of Spain adds that, unlike the contested regulation, Regulation No 147/2007 was adopted within the framework of the committee procedure and, although that committee did not issue an opinion within the time limits, the Member States concerned had the opportunity, as is confirmed in recital 13 in its preamble, to express their views regarding the criteria for deduction. Having omitted to give the Spanish authorities a hearing, the Commission did not take into consideration any criterion specific to Spanish fishing, which might have made it possible to determine the relevant situations for the purpose of applying the principle of equal treatment properly. In any event, the criterion of the risk of socio-economic consequences applies in the same way to the respective situations of Ireland and the United Kingdom, on the one hand, and the Kingdom of Spain, on the other. Therefore, the Commission was required to apply, inter alia, the same maximum annual reduction limit of 15% in the contested regulation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Informed user — Concept

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b))

2. Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Criteria for assessment — Creative licence

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(2) and 25(1)(b))

3. Community design — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Decision of an OHIM body forming part of the context of the decision of the Board of Appeal

4. Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Determination of the overall impression having regard to the manner of use of the product

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))

5. Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Criteria for assessment — Disadvantages and operational difficulties of the earlier design — Not included

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 1, 3 and 6)

Summary

1. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 21-25)

2. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 31-33)

3. When the Board of Appeal confirms a lower-level decision of OHIM in its entirety, that decision, together with its statement of reasons, forms part of the context in which the contested decision was adopted, a context which is known to the applicant and which enables the Court to exercise in full its jurisdiction to review legality as regards the question whether the assessment of individual character of the design at issue was well founded.

(see para. 43)

4. Assessment of the overall impression produced by a design on an informed user includes the manner in which the product represented by that design is used.

(see para. 46)

5. The individual character of a design is to be assessed, in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002, by comparing the overall impressions produced by the designs at issue on the informed user and by taking into consideration the degree of freedom of the designer. Thus, the criterion relating to the disadvantages and various operational difficulties of the earlier design which have allegedly been resolved in the contested design, is not among those which may be taken into account for the purposes of assessing the individual character of a design. Moreover, as is apparent from Articles 1 and 3 of Regulation No 6/2002, the law on designs seeks to protect the appearance of a product and not its methods of use or operation.

(see para. 52)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — Fomanu v OHIM (Qualität hat Zukunft)

(Case T-22/12)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Qualität hat Zukunft — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 13)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 14)

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 — Not permissible (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15-19)

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 paras 20, 22)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark Qualität hat Zukunft (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24-30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 October 2011 (Case R 1518/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Qualität hat Zukunft 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 — 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 22, 53)

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 CULTRA and word marks SCULPTRA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 51, 52, 56, 57)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2012 (Case R 2478/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Fasel Srl.

Operative part

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 26 January 2012 (Case R 2478/2010-1);

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and those of Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court and of those before the Board of Appeal.
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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 17, 18, 36, 37)

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 SLIM BELLY (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21, 24, 25, 42)

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 — Concept — Neologism consisting of elements descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services concerned — Whether included where the nature of the combination is not unusual (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 23)

4. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Scope — No obligation to prove matters within common knowledge (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 28)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the products or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), and 75) (see para. 33)

6. 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 — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 38)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 November 2011 (Case R 1077/2011-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign SLIM BELLY as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ABC-One Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October 2013 — Beninca v Commission

(Case T-561/12)

‛Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Document drawn up by the Commission in the context of the merger between Deutsche Börse and NYSE Euronext — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process’

1. Institutions of the European Union — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the decision-making process — Refusal of access to internal documents of the Commission relating to a procedure for review of concentration operations — Decision to close the procedure forming the subject-matter of legal proceedings — Admissibility of the refusal — Parties abandoning the concentration project — No effect (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2) and (3), second para.; Council Regulation No 139/2004, Arts 6(1), and 10(5)) (see paras 30-32, 36-39, 45)

2. Institutions of the European Union — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents — Concept — Subjective interest of the person concerned to defend himself — Not included (Art. 255 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, first and second recitals and Arts 2(1), and 4(3), second para.) (see paras 52, 58, 59)

3. Institutions of the European Union — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the decision-making process — Scope concerning documents underlying the legislative process — Application to documents relating to a procedure for reviewing concentration operations (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, second and sixth recitals and Art. 4; Council Regulation No 139/2004) (see para. 64)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 9 October 2012 refusing access to a memorandum from the head of the unit responsible for competition matters at the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 — Account taken by the General Court of matters of law and fact which have not been raised previously before the departments of OHIM — Exclusion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see paras 13, 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20-22, 37)

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 — Figurative mark ALOHA 100% NATURAL and word mark ALOA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26, 32-36, 38, 39)

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 para. 27)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 March 2012 (Case R 1058/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Stuffer SpA and Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG, formerly International Brands Germany GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Sweet Tec v OHIM (Shape of an oval)

(Case T‑156/12)

‛Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of an oval — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark constituted by the shape of the product — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 13, 16-18)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark representing an oval basic shape with a hollow extending over the whole of the upper surface (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19-26)

3. 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 28, 29)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2012 (Case R 542/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of an oval as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Power to issue directions — None (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 16)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Amendment of a decision by the Office — Assessment having regard to the competences conferred on the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 17)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 42)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 27, 46, 73)

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 — Figurative mark vitaminaqua — Word mark VITAMINWATER and figurative mark GLACEAU vitamin water (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 30, 43, 60, 61, 65-70, 82-84)

6. 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 paras 37, 39, 52)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 997/2011-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Energy Brands Inc. and Vitaminaqua Ltd.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Vitaminaqua Ltd 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 28, 60)

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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 37, 41)

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 paras 48, 52-54)

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 — Figurative mark DEMON and word mark DEMON (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 64, 66-68)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 June 2012 (Case R 1845/2011-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Demon International, LC and Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo.

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 20 June 2012 (Case R 1845/2001-4) in so far as it annulled in part the decision of the Cancellation Division and rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark No 6 375 398 concerning ‘ski masks’ and ‘snowboard masks’;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders Demon International, LC and Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo to bear their own costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal;

4. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs.