ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
93

In that regard, it should be borne in mind, first of all, that the Commission sent the members of the management committee, by email, two days before the date of the meeting, the document submitted to the management committee, namely a presentation concerning the situation on the poultrymeat market. That document, which was produced by the applicant in the annex to the application, enabled the Member States to acquaint themselves with the market situation and to form their own opinion in that regard. In the light of the content of that document, the period that elapsed between the time when that document was sent and the date of the meeting was sufficient to allow the members of the management committee to become acquainted with the information contained in the document, to form an opinion of the market situation and to prepare any questions to be put to the Commission on the subject at the meeting of the management committee. It should be observed that Article 3(3) of Regulation No 182/2011 does not prescribe any particular time limit for the sending of such documents. The time limit of 14 days prescribed in the first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 182/2011 applies only to the presentation of the draft implementing act and the draft agenda.
18

By Regulation (EU) No 1014/2012 of 6 November 2012 (OJ 2012 L 307, p. 1), the Council amended Regulation No 765/2006. It replaced Article 2 of the latter by the following: ‘1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, or owned, held or controlled by the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex I shall be frozen. 2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex I. 3. The participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be prohibited. 4. Annex I shall consist of a list of the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies who, in accordance with point (a) of Article 4(1) of … Decision 2012/642…, have been identified by the Council as being responsible for serious violations of human rights or the repression of civil society and democratic opposition, or whose activities otherwise seriously undermine democracy or the rule of law in Belarus, or any natural or legal persons, entities and bodies associated with them, as well as legal persons, entities or bodies owned or controlled by them. 5. Annex I shall also consist of a list of the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies who, in accordance with point (b) of Article 4(1) of … Decision 2012/642 …, have been identified by the Council as benefiting from or supporting the Lukashenka regime, as well as legal persons, entities and bodies owned or controlled by them.’
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2015 — Argo Development and Manufacturing v OHIM — Clapbanner (Representation of advertising articles)

(Case T‑41/14)

‛Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an advertising article — Earlier Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — Novelty — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Different overall impression — Articles 4, 5, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002’

1. Community designs — Conditions for protection — Design constituting a piece of a complex product — Piece having to remain visible during normal use of the product to be regarded as new and having individual character (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 3(c), and 4(2) and (3)) (see paras 14, 15)

2. Community designs — 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 (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 27, 29)

3. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — Conflict with an earlier design — 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), 10(1), and 25(1)(d)) (see paras 34, 51)

4. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — Conflict with an earlier design — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Criteria for assessment — Creative licence — Similarities between the designs concerning common characteristics (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 10 and 25(1)(d)) (see para. 37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 October 2013 (Case R 981/2012-3) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Argo Development and Manufacturing Ltd and Clapbanner Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2015 — Deluxe Laboratories v OHIM (deluxe)

(Case T‑222/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for figurative Community mark deluxe — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctiveness acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 13)

2. 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 16, 17)

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 para. 18)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2014 (Case R 1250/2013‑2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign deluxe as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 January 2014 (Case R 1250/2013‑2);
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2015 —

Mo Industries v OHIM (Splendid)

(Case T‑203/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark Splendid — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration’

1. 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 14, 15, 30)

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 — Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 17)

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 — Inadmissibility (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 18)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark Splendid (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21-23, 26-28, 37)

5. 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. 48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of 7 January 2014 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1542/2013‑1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Splendid as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — 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 PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG (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 125/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG 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 — 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 MIT PFLANZENFLUID AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG (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 124/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO MIT PFLANZENFLUID AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG 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 — 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. 12)

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 para. 13)

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 DetergentOptimiser (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16, 23)

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 paras 29-31)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2014 (Case R 172/2014-1), relating to an application for the word mark DetergentOptimiser as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Grundig Multimedia AG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications 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 para. 16)

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 PerfectRoast (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20-31)

4. 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. 38)

5. 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 39, 40)

6. 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 41-44)

7. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark PerfectRoast (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 46, 47)

8. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 50)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2014 (Case R 359/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign PerfectRoast.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 June 2014 (Case R 359/2014-5) in so far as it dismissed the appeal against the examiner’s decision to reject the application for registration of the Community trade mark PerfectRoast for ‘water heaters’, ‘immersion heaters’ and ‘egg-cookers’;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 October 2015 —

JP Divver Holding Company v OHIM (EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE)

(Case T‑642/14)

‛Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE — Absolute ground for refusal — No 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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 14, 15)

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 — Inadmissibility (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 17)

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 — Slogan with a fantasy character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 18)

5. 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 para. 19)

6. 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 207/209, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 28)

7. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 30-39, 44)

8. 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) (see para. 42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2014 (Case R 64/2014-2) concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word mark EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 20)

2. 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. 23)

3. 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 43-45)

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 — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Inadmissibility (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 46, 47)

5. 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 — Slogan carrying an objective message (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 48)

6. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark IDIRECT24 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 51, 75)

7. 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)(b), and 75, first sentence) (see paras 66, 67)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2014 (Case R 1867/2013-5), concerning the international registration designating the European Community of word mark IDIRECT24.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders iNET24 Holding AG to pay the costs.