ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 June 2012 — Hearst Communications v OHIM — Vida Estética (COSMOBELLEZA)

(Case T-344/09)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark COSMOBELLEZA — Earlier national and international word and figurative marks COSMO, COSMOPOLITAN, COSMOTEST, COSMOPOLITAN TELEVISION and THE COSMOPOLITAN SHOW — Non-registered marks and trade names COSMO and COSMOPOLITAN — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the marks — 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 98-104)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2009 (Case R 770/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Hearst Communications, Inc. and Vida Estética, SL.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

—

Transfer of the intellectual property right

—

Evidence of the transfer of the earlier national right (see paras 34-39

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2009 (Case R 551/2008‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between DL Sports & Marketing Ltda and Aurelio Muñoz Molina.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nike International Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) before the Court of Justice and the General Court.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — British Telecommunications and BT Pension Scheme Trustees v Commission

(Joined Cases T‑226/09 and T‑230/09)

‛State aid — Partial exemption from the obligation to contribute to the Pension Protection Fund — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — State resources — Advantage — Selective nature — Adverse effect on competition — Effect on trade between Member States — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons — Putting into effect of the aid’

1. State aid — Concept — Selective nature of the measure — Partial exemption from the obligation to pay a contribution to the Pension Protection Fund — Included — Measure designed to compensate for a structural disadvantage constituted by additional pension obligations — No effect — No breach of the principle of equal treatment — No justification based on the nature and economy of the system (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 41-43, 62, 76, 78, 86, 89, 93, 96-98, 121)

2. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — No arguments in support of the claim — General reference in support of a second plea to matters set out in the context of the first — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 138, 232, 233)

3. State aid — Effect on trade between Member States — Adverse effect on competition — Criteria for assessment (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 154-158, 169, 171, 175, 176)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision on State aid (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 159, 224-228)

5. State aid — Concept — Grant imputable to the State of an advantage by means of State resources — Advantages involving a diminution of the State budget or risking such a diminution — State Guarantee conferring partial exemption from the obligation to contribute to the Pension Protection Fund — Included (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 187-190, 212-216, 222)

6. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Calculation of the amount of aid to be recovered — Difficulties encountered by the State — Duty of cooperation between the Commission and the Member State — Scope (Arts 10 EC, 87 EC and 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras 273-275)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/703/EC of 11 February 2009 concerning State aid C‑55/2007 (ex NN 63/07, CP 106/06) implemented by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — Public guarantee in favour of [British Telecommunications] (OJ 2009 L 242, p. 21).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. In Case T‑226/09, orders British Telecommunications plc to pay the costs;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2010 – Ravensburger v OHIM – Educa Borras (MEMORY)

(Case T-108/09)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark MEMORY – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) and Article 77 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 30-31)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2009 (Case R 305/2008-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Educa Borras, SA and Ravensburger AG.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: National word mark MEMORY for goods in Classes 9 and 28 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Ravensburger AG Parties seeking cancellation of the Community trade mark: Educa Borras, SA Decision of the Cancellation Division: Community trade mark invalid Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 November 2010 – Commission v Irish Electricity Generating

(Case T-323/09)

Arbitration clause – Contract concluded in the framework of a specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 to 1998) – Non-performance of the contract – Reimbursement of the sums advanced – Late-payment interest – Procedure by default

1. Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Contract granting Community financial assistance for a non-nuclear energy project – Amount of approved admissible costs less than the amount of the sum advanced by the Commission – Commission demand for reimbursement of the overpayment – Obligation on the co-contractor to prove the reality of and need for the costs declared to the Commission for the implementation of the project (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 60-61)

2. Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Contract granting Community financial assistance for a non-nuclear energy project – Amount of approved admissible costs less than the amount of the sum advanced by the Commission – Right to partial reimbursement of the advance, together with late-payment interest – Rate of late-payment interest claimed by the Commission lower than that calculated under the applicable rules of national law (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 73-76)

Re:

APPLICATION under an arbitration clause seeking an order that Irish Electricity Generating Co. Ltd repay the sum of EUR 180 664.70 corresponding to part of the advances paid to it by the Commission under contract No WE/178/97/IE/GB, together with late-payment interest.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Irish Electricity Generating Co. Ltd to repay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 180 664.70, together with late-payment interest:

– at the rate of 5.56% per annum from 25 August 2003 to the date of the present judgment;

– at the annual rate applied under Irish law, that is to say, currently section 26 of the Debtors (Ireland) Act, 1840, as amended, up to a rate of 5.56% per annum from the date of the present judgment until full clearance of the debt;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 October 2010 – Strategi Group v OHIM – RBI (STRATEGI)

(Case T-92/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark STRATEGI – Earlier national word mark Stratégies – Relative ground for refusal – Proof of use of the earlier trade mark – Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Partial use – Effect (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see para. 45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 December 2008 (Case R 1581/2007‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between Reed Business Information (RBI) and Strategi Group Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Strategi Group Ltd Community trade mark sought: Word mark STRATEGI for services in Class 35 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Reed Business Information (RBI) Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark registration No 1240001 of the word mark Stratégies for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 41 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (single judge) of 16 December 2010 – Commission v Arci Nuova associazione comitato di Cagliari and Gessa

(Case T-259/09)

Arbitration clause – Agreement entered into as part of support for European discussion projects organised by non-governmental organisations for 2003 – Action brought against the head of an association – No jurisdiction – Failure to implement the agreement – Repayment of sums advanced

1. Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Community judicature having no jurisdiction where the parties have not expressed the intention to confer jurisdiction upon it over a contractual dispute – Contracts concluded between the Commission and an association – Action by the Commission against the President of that association – President not bound by the contracts – Rejection – Joint and several liability of the President under the relevant national law – No effect (Arts 238 EC and 240 EC) (see paras 39-46)

2. Budget of the European Communities – Community financial assistance – Obligation on the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the assistance – Financing covering only expenses actually incurred – Proof of the reality of the expenses declared in the prescribed forms and time-limits – None – Ineligible expenses (Art. 274 EC) (see paras 61-67)

Re:

ACTION brought under Article 238 EC on the basis of an arbitration clause seeking an order that Arci Nuova associazione comitato di Cagliari and Alberto Gessa, in a personal capacity and jointly and severally, should repay an advance paid by the Commission under the agreement 2003‑1550/001‑001, together with late payment interest.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action so far as brought against Mr Alberto Gessa;

2. Orders Arci Nuova associazione comitato di Cagliari to repay to the European Commission the principal sum of EUR 15 675, together with late payment interest at the rate of 7.32% from 20 May 2007 until full payment of the debt;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2010 – Epcos v OHIM – Epco Sistemas (EPCOS)

(Case T-132/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark EPCOS – Earlier national figurative mark epco SISTEMAS – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Genuine use of earlier mark – Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) 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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 88-89)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2009 (Case R 1088/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Epco Sistemas SL and Epcos AG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Epcos AG Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark EPCOS for goods in Classes 6 and 9 – Application No 4133799 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Epco Sistemas, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark E epco SISTEMAS for goods in Class 9 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1.Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 – XXXLutz Marken v OHIM – Natura Selection (Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil)

(Case T-54/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil – Earlier Community figurative mark natura selection – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Complex mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38, 41, 43-44)

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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Whether conceptual differences may neutralise visual or aural similarities – Conditions (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 61)

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 71-74)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2008 (Case R 1787/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Natura Selection, SL and XXXLutz Marken GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: XXXLutz Marken GmbH Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil for goods in Classes 8, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25 and 27 – Registration No 4626693 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Natura Selection, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark natura selection for goods and services in Classes 3, 14, 16, 20, 25, 35, 38, 39 and 42, and further Community trade marks and Spanish marks containing the word ‘natura’, for goods and services in Classes 3, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 35, 39 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 February 2011 – J & F Participações v OHIM – Plusfood Wrexham (Friboi)

(Case T-324/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark Friboi – Earlier national word mark FRIBO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009

1. 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 26-27)

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 45, 69)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2009 (Case R 824/2008‑1), concerning opposition proceedings between Fribo Foods Ltd and Agropecuaria Friboi, Ltda.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: J & F Participações SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Friboi for goods in Class 29 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Plusfood Wrexham Ltd Mark or sign cited in opposition: United Kingdom trade mark registration of the word mark FRIBO for goods in Class 29; United Kingdom trade mark registration of the figurative mark Fribo for goods in Class 29; German trade mark registration of the word mark FRIBO for goods in Class 29; German trade mark registration of the figurative mark FRIBO for goods in Class 29; French trade mark registration of the word mark FRIBO for goods in Class 29; French trade mark registration of the figurative mark FRIBO for goods in Class 29; Italian trade mark registration of the word mark FRIBO for goods in Class 29; Italian trade mark registration of the figurative mark FRIBO for goods in Class 29 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal partially upheld





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 May 2011 – Bongrain v OHIM – apetito (APETITO)

(Case T-129/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark APETITO – Earlier Community word mark apetito – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the goods – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 February 2009 (Case R 720/2008‑4) relating to opposition proceedings between apetito AG and Bongrain SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bongrain SA Community trade mark sought: Word mark APETITO for goods in Class 29 – Application No 3470598 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: apetito AG Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark apetito, registered for goods in Classes 5, 11, 21 29, 30, 37, 39, 41 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1.Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 April 2011 – Fuller & Thaler Asset Management v OHIM (BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING and BEHAVIOURAL INDEX)

(Cases T-310/09 and T-383/09)

Community trade mark – Applications for Community word marks BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING and BEHAVIOURAL INDEX – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(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 which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 33, 44)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion – Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 49)

Re:

ACTIONS brought, in Case T-310/09, against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2009 (Case R 323/2008‑G) concerning an application for registration of the word sign BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING as a Community trade mark and, in Case T-383/09, against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2009 (Case R 138/2009‑1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign BEHAVIOURAL INDEX as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Fuller & Thaler Asset Management, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word marks BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING and BEHAVIOURAL INDEX for goods and services in classes 9 and 36 – Applications Nos 5785456 and 5785092 Decision of the examiner: Registrations refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeals dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders that Cases T‑310/09 and T‑383/09 be joined for the purposes of the present judgment;

2. Dismisses the applications;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2011 – ATB Norte v OHIM – Bricocenter Italia (BRICOCENTER)

(Case T-480/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark BRICOCENTER – Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro – 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 33-34, 57, 66-67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2009 (Case R 1045/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bricocenter Italia Srl Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark BRICOCENTER in respect of services in Class 35 – Application No 4935185 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Earlier figurative Community trade marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro (No 989046) and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro (No 3262623) in respect of services in Classes 35, 37 and 39 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled; opposition dismissed in its entirety





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 28 September 2009 (Case R 1045/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;