ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2011 – CheapFlights International v OHIM – Cheapflights (Cheapflights)

(Case T-460/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark Cheapflights – Earlier national figurative mark CheapFlights – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32-33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 August 2009 (Case R 1356/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between CheapFlights International Ltd and Cheapflights Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Cheapflights Ltd Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Cheapflights for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 39 and 41 to 44 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: CheapFlights International Ltd Mark or sign cited in opposition: Irish trade mark registration of the figurative sign CheapFlights for services in Classes 35, 36, 38, 39, and 41 to 44; Irish trade mark application for the word mark CHEAPFLIGHTS for services in Classes 35, 39 and 43; Irish trade mark registration of the word mark CHEAPFLIGHTS for services in Classes 38, 41, 42 and 44; Irish trade mark registration of the figurative sign CheapFlights.ie for services in Classes 35, 39, 41 to 43; International trade mark registration of the figurative sign CheapFlights for services in Classes 35, 38, 39 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part 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 31 August 2009 (Case R 1356/2007-4);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2011 – ATB Norte v OHIM – Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER)

(Case T-476/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark BRICO CENTER – 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 24 September 2009 (Case R 1006/2008-4) 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 BRICO CENTER in respect of services in Class 35 – Application No 4934147 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 containing the word elements 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 24 September 2009 (Case R 1006/2008-4) 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;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 12 July 2011 – Slovenia v Commission

(Case T-197/09)

EAGGF – ‘Guarantee’ Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Arable crops

1. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 20-23)

2. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Challenge by the Member State concerned – Burden of proof – Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (see paras 39-40, 83)

3. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Extrapolation of findings of deficiencies in the control system of a Member State from one region to other regions – Lawfulness – Conditions (see paras 58-64)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/253/EC of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2009 L 75, p. 15), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Slovenia.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 October 2011 – Poloplast v OHIM – Polypipe (P)

(Case T-189/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative trade mark P – Earlier figurative Community marks P and P POLYPIPE – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – 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))

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 February 2009 (Case R 80/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Polypipe Ltd and Poloplast GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 September 2011 – Italy v Commission

(Case T-500/09)

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Aid for the processing of citrus fruit – Effectiveness of the checks – Proportionality

1. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Challenge by the Member State concerned – Burden of proof – Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (Council Regulation No 1258/1999) (see para. 33)

2. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Margin of discretion of the Commission – None (Council Regulation No 1258/1999) (see para. 44)

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Grant of aids and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an efficient system of administrative controls and spot checks – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification on the basis of practical difficulties – Not permissible (Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 8; Commission Regulation No 2111/2003, Art. 24) (see para. 45)

4. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Finding of failures in the control system implemented by a Member State – Possibility of the Commission disallowing all the expenditure – Application of a flat-rate correction – Breach of principle of proportionality – None (Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 7) (see para. 50)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/721/EC of 24 September 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2009 L 257, p. 28), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic in the sector of citrus‑fruit processing.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
28

Fourthly, the fact that — as the Board of Appeal points out in paragraph 19 of the contested decision — in the grounds supporting its opposition, the applicant used the term ‘trade mark’ to refer to the sign relied on, apart from the fact that this can result from a non-registered trade mark being invoked in support of the opposition, cannot detract from the fact that the opposition was based, inter alia, on a sign used in the course of trade. Moreover, the Board of Appeal referred to that ground of opposition in paragraph 16 of the contested decision. In those circumstances, it must be held that the fact relied on by the Board of Appeal, according to which the sign BASMATI is not a trade mark, does not nevertheless mean that the applicant had not acquired rights over that sign for the purposes of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94, read in the light of the national law which is applicable in the present case. More specifically, as regards the assertion made by the Board of Appeal to the effect that the term ‘basmati’ is generic, it follows from national case-law that a sign used to designate goods or services may have acquired a reputation on the market for the purposes of the law applicable to an action for passing off, even though it originally had a descriptive character or is devoid of distinctive character (see LAST MINUTE TOUR, paragraph 26 above, paragraph 84). It also follows from national case-law that a sign used to designate goods or services may have acquired a reputation on the market for the purposes of the law applicable to an action for passing off, even though it is used by several traders in the course of business (Chocosuisse Union des fabricants suisses de chocolat & Ors v Cadbury Ltd. [1999] EWCA Civ 856). That ‘extended’ form of the action for passing off, recognised by national case-law, accordingly enables several traders to have rights over a sign which has acquired a reputation on the market. The fact relied on by the Board of Appeal — assuming it to be proved — is not therefore capable, in the light of the national law applicable, of casting doubt on the fact that the opponent may have acquired rights over the sign relied upon.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 – Rintisch v OHIM – Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires (PROTIVITAL)

(Case T-109/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark PROTIVITAL – Earlier national word and figurative marks PROTIPLUS, PROTI and PROTIPOWER – Late submission of documents – Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Concept of a provision to the contrary – Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal brought against a decision of the Opposition Division of the Office – Examination by Board of Appeal – Scope – Evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the prescribed time-limit – Account taken – Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Arts 20(1) and 50(1)) (see paras 31-33, 37-42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2009 (Case R 1660/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Bernhard Rintisch and Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2012 —

Retractable Technologies v OHIM — Abbott Laboratories (RT)



(Case T‑371/09)

Community trade mark — Opposition Procedure — Application for figurative Community mark RT — Earlier national word mark RTH — 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 27, 28, 43-45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 July 2009 (Case R 1234/2008‑4) concerning opposition proceedings between Abbott Laboratories and Retractable Technologies, Inc.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 March 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-236/09)

Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — External service provision for development, studies and support of information systems — Rejection of a tenderer’s bids — Duty to state reasons — Equal treatment — Transparency — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability

1. Public contracts of the European Union — Tender procedure — Period of validity of tenders — Purpose — Possibility of the tendering authority asking tenderers for an extension of validity — No obligation on tenderers to accept the request — No obligation on tenderers to accept the request — No obligation to annul the procedure in the event of refusal (Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 130(2)(c)) (see paras 37-40)

2. Public contracts of the European Union — Tender procedure — Award of contracts — Exclusion of tenderers seriously in default of their obligations under another contract — Condition — Tenderers having been subject to an administrative penalty under Article 96(1) of the Financial Regulation (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 93(1)(f), 94 and 96(1); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 134b) (see paras 50-51)

3. Public contracts of the European Union — Tender procedure — Right for undertakings established in countries which are not signatories of the agreement on public contracts, or which use sub-contractors established in those countries, to participate in tendering procedures — Lawfulness (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 106 and 107) (see para. 55)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the award of a public contract, not to accept a tender — Assessment by reference to the circumstances of the particular case (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 76-80)

5. Public contracts of the European Union — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Decision requiring a complex technical assessment — Judicial review — Limits (see paras 88, 111)

6. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Mere allegation not supported by factual or legal explanations — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 114-115)

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 27 March 2009 rejecting the applicant’s tenders for, respectively, lot 1, ‘On-site development expertise (intra muros)’, and lot 2, ‘Off-site development (extra muros)’, in Call for Tenders RTD-R4-2007-001 on external service provision for development, studies and support of information systems for the Commission (OJ 2007 S 238), and the decisions to award the lots to other tenderers and, second, for damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 June 2012 —

Basile and I Marchi Italiani v OHIM — Osra (B. Antonio Basile 1952)



(Case T-134/09)

Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark B. Antonio Basile 1952 — Earlier national word mark BASILE — Relative ground for refusal — Limitation through acquiescence — Article 53(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

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 — General Court taking account of legal and factual elements not previously submitted before the OHIM bodies — Exclusion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see paras 15, 18, 22)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Limitation through acquiescence — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 30-32)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 39, 62)

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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 41, 44, 45)

5. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark B. Antonio Basile 1952 and word mark BASILE (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b), and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 61, 63, 64, 69)

Re:

ACTION brought against the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2009 (Case R 1436/2007-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Osra SA and Mr Antonio Basile.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Removes the name of the second applicant, I Marchi Italiani Srl, from the list of applicants in Case T-134/09;

2. Dismisses the action;

3. Orders Mr Antonio Basile to pay the costs, other than those relating to the discontinuance;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 23 October 2012 — Vanhecke v Parliament

(Case T-14/09)

Privileges and immunities — Member of the Parliament — Waiver of immunity — Action for annulment — No further interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Action for annulment of a decision to waive the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — National criminal proceedings terminated by a discharge — National court decision acquiring force of res judicata after the bringing of the annulment action — No further interest in bringing an action — No need to adjudicate (Art. 230 EC; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 113) (see paras 23-29)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 18 November 2008 waiving the parliamentary immunity of the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the present 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 unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade

–

Local range of the sign (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 23, 29-30

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 March 2010 (Case R 746/2009‑1) concerning opposition proceedings between Wenz GmbH and IVKO Industrieprodukt-Vertriebskontakt GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders K-Mail Order 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 59

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2010 (Case R 892/2010-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign EURO AUTOMATIC CASH as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>20

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Euro-Information – Européenne de traitement de l'information to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community designs

–

Ground for invalidity

–

No individual character

–

Design not producing on the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the previous design

–

Representation of a mechanical speed reducer (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 21-22, 24-26, 28

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 March 2010 (Case R 1337/2008-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Motive Srl and Industrias Francisco Ivars, SL.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Industrias Francisco Ivars, SL to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Surrender, revocation and invalidity

–

Relative grounds of invalidity

–

Existence of an identical or similar earlier trade mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 22, 49, 52-54

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2010 (Case R 1020/2008‑4) concerning invalidity proceedings between El Coto de Rioja, SA and Ms María Álvarez Serrano.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 April 2010 (Case R 1020/2008‑4) in so far as the assessment of the Board of Appeal as to the similarity of the signs in question is incorrect;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.
Keywords



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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 47-49

)