ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 October 2013 — Zoo Sport v OHIM — K-2 (ZOOSPORT)

(Case T-453/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ZOOSPORT — Earlier Community word mark ZOOT and earlier Community figurative mark SPORTS ZOOT SPORTS — 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 27, 88)

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 para. 29)

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 — Word mark ZOOSPORT and figurative mark ZOOT SPORT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42, 87, 94)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 August 2012 (Case R 1119/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between K-2 Corp. and Zoo Sport Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
3.

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Legality of the decision of a Board of Appeal adjudicating in opposition proceedings — Challenged by the adducing of new facts — Not permissible — Account taken, for the purposes of interpreting EU law, of EU national or international case-law not cited before the OHIM bodies — Lawfulness (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 22)
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 21, 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative marks ancotel. and ACOTEL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 40-42, 46, 55-57)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 August 2012 (Case R 1895/2011-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Acotel SpA and ancotel GmbH, now Equinix (Germany) GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Equinix (Germany) 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 — 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 mark FREEVOLUTION TM — Figurative mark free LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX and word marks FREE and FREE MOBILE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b) and (2)) (see paras 22, 23, 53-55)

3. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Possibility for the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2) and (3)) (see paras 27, 28)

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 30-35)

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 — Link between the marks (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 63, 70, 71)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2011 (Case R 2326/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Free SAS and Noble Gaming Ltd.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Fre SAS to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — Message Management v OHIM — Absacker (ABSACKER of Germany)

(Case T‑304/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ABSACKER of Germany — Earlier national figurative mark ABSACKER — 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 21-24, 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 — Figurative marks ABSACKER of Germany and ABSACKER (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27-29, 47, 49, 50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 March 2012 (Case R 1028/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Absacker GmbH and Message Management GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Message Management GmbH to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — Message Management v OHIM — Absacker (ABSACKER of Germany)

(Case T‑304/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ABSACKER of Germany — Earlier national figurative mark ABSACKER — 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 21-24, 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 — Figurative marks ABSACKER of Germany and ABSACKER (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27-29, 47, 49, 50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 March 2012 (Case R 1028/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Absacker GmbH and Message Management GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community designs — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61) (see para. 27)

2. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on an informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier sign — Informed user — Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 58-62)

3. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on an informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier sign — Criteria for assessment — Creative licence (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6 and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 65-67)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 74)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2012 (Case R 953/2011-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Antrax It Srl and Tubes Radiatori Srl.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 April 2012 (Case R 953/2011-3);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tubes Radiatori Srl;

4. Orders Antrax It Srl to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 May 2014 — Bateaux mouches v OHIM (BATEAUX-MOUCHES)

(Case T‑553/12)

‛Community trade mark — Application for figurative Community trade mark BATEAUX-MOUCHES — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Relevant date for examining an absolute ground for refusal — Date of lodging the application for registration (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)) (see para. 23)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the various grounds for refusal — Interpretation of the grounds for refusal in the light of the public interest underlying each of them (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 32)

3. 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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 33-36)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Exception — Distinctive character acquired through use — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(3)) (see paras 58-61)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries — Decisions not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009; European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95) (see para. 72)

6. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Examination by the EU judicature — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 74)

7. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 74)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 October 2012 (Case R 1709/2011‑2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BATEAUX-MOUCHES as a Community trade mark.

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. 23)

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 — Genuine use — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), second para., (a), and 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 29)

4. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), second para., (a), and 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 30)

Subject of the case

Re:

Three actions brought against three decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Cases R 680/2011-4, R 682/2011-4 and R 679/2011‑4), concerning three opposition proceedings between European Drinks SA and SC Alexandrion Grup Romania Srl.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T‑495/12, T‑496/12 and T‑497/12 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;

3. Orders European Drinks SA to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 July 2014 — Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik v OHIM — Viavita (VIAVITA)

(Case T‑204/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark VIAVITA — Earlier national word mark VILA VITA PARC and figurative mark VILA VITA — No genuine use of earlier marks — Article 42(2) and (3) and Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Subject-matter and material scope of Article 15(1), second paragraph, (a), of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1), second para., (a)) (see paras 23-25)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 419/2011-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik GmbH and Viavita.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 November 2014 —

Ntouvas v ECDC

(Case T‑223/12)

‛Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(2), third indent — Final audit reports carried out on the ECDC by the Commission’s Internal Audit Service — Refusal of access — Obligation to state reasons — Obligation to undertake a concrete, individual examination — Overriding public interest’

1. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Assessment of the obligation to state reasons by reference to the circumstances of the case (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 20, 49, 50)

2. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Subject-matter — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Strict interpretation and application (Art. 1, second para., TEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, first, second, fourth and eleventh recitals, Arts 1 and 4) (see paras 21-23, 25)

3. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Duty to balance relevant interests (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2)) (see para. 24)

4. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Refusal of access — Requirement that the institution should examine the documents specifically and individually — Possibility to base reasoning on general presumptions applying to certain categories of documents — Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1) to (3)) (see paras 27, 28, 31-35, 38, 41)

5. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Obligation to grant partial access to data not covered by the exceptions (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(6)) (see para. 45)

6. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Institution’s duty of assistance where application not sufficiently precise (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 6(2)) (see para. 46)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the ECDC of 27 March 2012 (DIR-12-0636-MSrukr) refusing the applicant access to the final audit reports carried out on the ECDC by the Internal Audit Service of the European Commission.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) of 27 March 2012 (DIR-12-0636-MSrukr) refusing Mr Ioannis Ntouvas access to the final audit reports carried out on the ECDC by the Internal Audit Service of the European Commission;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2014 —

Kaatsu Japan v OHIM (KAATSU)

(Case T‑567/12)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark KAATSU — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rights of the defence — Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 19)

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 — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 27)

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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 28, 29)

4. 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 KAATSU (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 35-39)

5. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence) (see paras 49-51)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 October 2012 (Case R 435/2012‑2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign KAATSU 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 15-17)

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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 21)

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 mark The English Cut — Word and figurative marks El Corte Inglés (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 29, 33)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 38)

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders El Corte Inglés SA to pay the costs.