ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The word mark Lembergerland, registration of which as a Community trade mark is sought in respect of ‘alcoholic drinks (except beers)’ falling within Class 33 of the Nice arrangement is covered by the absolute ground for refusal laid down by Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation No 207/2009, by reason of the existence of the protected geographical indication Lemberg.

First, Lemberg is a protected geographical indication within the territory of the European Union for wines originating from South Africa under the provisions of the Agreement between the Community and the Republic of South Africa. The fact that the name refers to an ‘estate’ (a wine-growing estate) and not to a region, a municipality or a district does not call into question the fact that it is expressly protected as a geographical indication under that agreement.

Second, the mark applied for Lembergerland contains or consists of the geographical indication Lemberg, protected under the Agreement between the Community and the Republic of South Africa for wines of that provenance. The goods covered by the mark applied for include wine even though the applicant did not claim that it originates from Lemberg.

(see paras 16, 29)
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 14, 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 — Figurative mark BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16-18, 24)

3. 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 goods 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. 19)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 22)

5. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Misuse of powers — Concept (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 26)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2014 (Case R 122/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Signs of which a trade mark may consist — Condition — Distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 4) (see para. 18)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 51(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 22(3), and 40(5)) (see paras 21-23, 27-29)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Registered mark used solely as an element of a composite mark or in combination with another mark — Three-dimensional mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)(a)) (see paras 30-37)

4. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Three-dimensional mark constituted by the form of an oven used in conjunction with the word element ‘voxka’ (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 38-42)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 February 2014 (Case R 1656/2013-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Mr Toni Klement and Bullerjan GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Toni Klement to pay the costs.
Although the Council has a broad discretion as regards the general criteria to be taken into consideration for the purpose of adopting restrictive measures, the effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires that, as part of the review of the lawfulness of the grounds which are the basis of the decision to include or to maintain a person’s name on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures, the Courts of the European Union are to ensure that that decision, which affects that person individually, is taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis. That entails a verification of the factual allegations in the summary of reasons underpinning that decision, with the consequence that judicial review cannot be restricted to an assessment of the cogency in the abstract of the reasons relied on, but must concern whether those reasons, or, at the very least, one of those reasons, deemed sufficient in itself to support that decision, are substantiated by sufficiently specific and concrete evidence.

A decision on the adoption of restrictive measures as provided for in Article 29 TEU is not adopted in response to a request from the authorities of the non-member country concerned, but constitutes an autonomous measure adopted in pursuit of the Common Foreign and Security Policy objectives of the European Union. It is for the competent European Union authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied on against the person concerned are well-founded, and not the task of that person to adduce evidence of the negative, that those reasons are not well-founded.

In order to enter the name of a person on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures on the ground that that person has been identified by the judicial authorities of a third country as responsible for the misappropriation of State funds, the Council must have information regarding the acts or conduct specifically imputed to that person by those authorities, namely a sufficiently solid factual basis.

(see paras 38, 45, 48)
Where the institutions have a discretion, the decisive criterion for finding an infringement of EU law sufficiently serious to render the EU non-contractually liable is manifest and serious disregard of the limits imposed on the latter.

In order to establish the degree of discretion available to the institutions, it is first necessary to determine the conduct of which the institutions are accused in implementing Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, as amended by Regulation No 1225/2009. Such a step is explained by the fact that implementation of a provision can entail various actions over which the institution responsible for the implementation may not necessarily have the same degree of discretion. That is the case, in particular, with provisions establishing the method for calculating a value, such as the normal value that is used in calculating the dumping margin.

The Commission enjoys a degree of discretion in the context of an anti-dumping investigation, both in relation to the analysis of statistical data provided by Eurostat and in the pursuit of its investigations on the basis of that analysis for the purposes of determining a market economy third country in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation No 384/96.

In the case of a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties which has been declared invalid on the ground that the Commission disregarded its duty of diligence by not carrying out its investigations whereas it should have done, the conduct thus complained of against the Commission is not having made a serious and sufficient effort and thereby making an erroneous assessment of the extent of its obligations flowing from its duty of diligence. By so doing, the Commission does not, however, totally disregard the obligations flowing from its duty of diligence where it does not abstain from carrying out investigations, but carries out investigations on its own initiative during a proceeding whereby it discovers the existence of two producers, originating in a non-member country, of the product covered by the anti-dumping duties, to which it sends questionnaires.

In those circumstances, the institutions cannot be accused of any act or conduct capable of rendering the EU liable, and the non-contractual liability of the EU cannot be engaged.

(see paras 36, 38, 41-43, 45, 47, 49-52, 54-57)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 October 2015 —

CBM v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare (Trecolore)

(Case T‑227/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Trecolore — Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks FRECCE TRICOLORI — Relative ground for refusal — 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17-21)

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 — Earlier mark consisting of a Community trade 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. 32)

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 para. 35)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (see para. 37)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark Trecolore — Word and figurative marks FRECCE TRICOLORI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38-52, 56-60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (Case R 253/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore and CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 October 2015 —

CBM v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare (TRECOLORE)

(Case T‑228/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark TRECOLORE — Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks FRECCE TRICOLORI — Relative ground for refusal — 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18-22)

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 — Earlier mark consisting of a Community trade 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. 35)

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 para. 43)

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 TRECOLORE — Word and figurative marks FRECCE TRICOLORI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 46-64, 68)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (Case R 594/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore and CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 18 November 2015 — Research Engineering & Manufacturing v OHIM — Nedschroef Holding (TRILOBULAR)

(Case T‑558/14)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark TRILOBULAR — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 15)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16, 17)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Word mark TRILOBULAR (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 20-22, 50)

4. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Invalidity proceedings concerning absolute grounds for refusal — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), 52, 55, 57(1) and 76(1)) (see paras 40, 41)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2014 (Case R 442/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Nedschroef Holding BV and Research Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 November 2015 —

Ewald Dörken v OHIM — Schürmann (VENT ROLL)

(Case T‑223/14)

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

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras. 19-22)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word mark composed of several elements — Taking into account the overall perception of the mark by the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23, 24)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word mark VENT ROLL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 26, 41)

4. 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 goods 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 paras 34, 35)

5. 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 — No provision to the contrary (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2)) (see para. 48)

6. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal brought against a decision of a unit of the Office ruling at first instance and referred to the Board of Appeal — Functional continuity between those two bodies — Examination of the appeal by the Board of Appeal — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 64(1)) (see para. 49)

7. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Invalidity proceedings concerning absolute grounds for refusal — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), 52, 55 and 76(1)) (see paras 56-58)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2014 (Case R 2156/2012-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Wolfram Schürmann and Ewald Dörken AG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 2 December 2015 —

Information Resources v OHIM (Growth Delivered)

(Case T‑528/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Growth Delivered — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — 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 — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 14-16)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Inadmissibility (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17-22)

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 — Perception of the trade mark by the relevant public — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 29)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark Growth Delivered (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 39, 42, 44, 45, 47)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Trade mark made up of several elements — Possible for the competent authority to examine each of the elements making up the trade mark — Need to take account of the overall perception of the combination by the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 37)

6. 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 57-59)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 May 2014 (Case R 1777/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Growth Delivered as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 —

TVR Automotive v OHIM — Cardoni (TVR ENGINEERING)

(Case T‑781/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark TVR ENGINEERING — Earlier Community figurative mark TVR — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 20)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative marks TVR ENGINEERING and TVR (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 39-42)

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 23, 24)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 (Case R 2532/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between TVR Automotive Ltd and Fabio Cardoni.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
1.

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before OHIM bodies — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 18)