ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark does not preclude the registration of certification marks. That regulation provides for the protection only of individual or collective Community trade marks. Certification marks can be registered as Community trade marks provided that there are no absolute grounds, within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, preventing their registration.

The concept of general interest underlying Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 requires that signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate characteristics of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought may be freely used by all. That provision prevents such signs or indications from being reserved to one undertaking alone because they have been registered as trade marks and prevents an undertaking from monopolising the use of a descriptive term to the detriment of other undertakings, including its competitors, for whom the extent of the vocabulary available to describe their own products is thereby reduced.

The general interest or public interest in keeping descriptive marks free for third parties to use is pre-established and presumed. It follows that, where the mark applied for is descriptive, it is sufficient for the Board of Appeal to make the finding of that descriptive character without, however, having to examine the question whether, notwithstanding its descriptive character, there is in fact a public interest in keeping the mark applied for free for third parties to use. Accordingly, for the purposes of applying Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, it need only be examined, on the basis of a given meaning of the word sign at issue, whether, from the point of view of the relevant public, there is a sufficiently direct and specific relationship between the sign and the characteristics of the categories of goods or services in respect of which registration is sought. In that context, it is also worth recalling that the application of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 does not depend on the existence of a real, current or serious need to leave a sign free.

(see paras 53, 55)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 October 2015 —

Giuntoli v OHIM — Société des produits Nestlé (CREMERIA TOSCANA)

(Case T‑256/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark CREMERIA TOSCANA — Earlier international figurative mark la Cremeria — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 20, 62)

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 — Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 41)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Assessment of the distinctiveness of an element composing a trade mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27-32)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative marks CREMERIA TOSCANA and la Cremeria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 42, 65, 66)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 February 2014 (Case R 886/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Société des produits Nestlé SA and Mr Andrea Giuntoli.

Operative part

The Court:

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

Soprema v OHIM — Sopro Bauchemie (SOPRAPUR)

(Case T‑763/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark SOPRAPUR — Prior Community word mark Sopro — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods and the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 paras 20, 21)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 68, 77)

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 — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 34)

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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 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 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 40, 47, 54, 55)

6. 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 marks SOPRAPUR and Sopro (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 74)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2014 (Case R 1370/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Sopro Bauchemie GmbH and Holding Soprema.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 November 2015 —

Établissement Amra v OHIM (KJ Kangoo Jumps XR)

(Case T‑390/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community trade mark KJ Kangoo Jumps XR — Absolute ground for refusal — Devoid of any distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 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 — Three-dimensional mark constituted by the shape of the product — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 13-15, 25)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Trade mark KJ Kangoo Jumps XR (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 26, 27, 29)

3. 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 paras 22, 23)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 March 2014 (Case R 1511/2013-2), concerning an application for registration of the ‘3D position mark’ KJ Kangoo Jumps XR as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 November 2015 —

NICO v Council

(Case T‑371/14)

‛Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment’

1. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned, enabling him to understand the scope of the measure taken against him — Whether a summary statement of reasons is sufficient (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP and 2012/635/CFSP; Council Regulations No 267/2012 and No 945/2012) (see paras 29-34, 38)

2. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Amplification of an existing plea — Limits (Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 48(2)) (see paras 43, 44)

3. European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures against Iran — Measures in the context of the fight against nuclear proliferation — Scope of review (Art. 275, second para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP and 2012/635/CFSP; Council Regulations No 267/2012 and No 945/2012) (see paras 46, 47)

4. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies engaged in or supporting nuclear proliferation — Obligation to extend that measure to entities owned or controlled by such an entity — Whether an entity is owned or controlled — Assessment on a case-by-case basis by the Council — Criteria (Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP, Art. 20(1)(c), and 2012/635/CFSP; Council Regulations No 267/2012, Art. 23(2)(d), and No 945/2012) (see paras 48-50, 54)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Council decision contained in the letter of 14 March 2014 by which the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), as amended by Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58), and in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
5.

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 52, 96)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 February 2016 —

Puma v OHIM — Sinda Poland (Representation of an animal)

(Case T‑692/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative mark representing an animal — Earlier international figurative marks representing a puma — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. 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. 14)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18)

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 — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 24)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark representing an animal and figurative marks representing a puma (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 33-36)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2014 (Case R 2214/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Puma SE and Sinda Poland Corporation sp. z o.o.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 July 2014 (Case R 2214/2013-5);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Puma SE, including those necessarily incurred by Puma SE for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 February 2016 —

PRIMA v Commission

(Case T‑722/14)

‛Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Support for the European Commission representative in Bulgaria in the context of the organization of public events — Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer — Award criteria — Obligation to state reasons — Concept of relative advantages of the successful tender — Transparency’

1. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Application for annulment of a decision to conclude a contract for the performance of a public contract — EU judicature not having jurisdiction — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 19)

2. European Union public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (see paras 22, 53)

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — Obligation to communicate, following a written request, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the tenderer — No obligation on the awarding authority to provide a detailed comparative analysis of the tender accepted and the tender of the unsuccessful tenderer (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 113(2), first subpara.; Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Art. 161(3)) (see paras 23, 27, 28, 32-37)

4. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Reliance on matters subsequent to the date of adoption of the contested decision — Pleas not entailing the annulment of the decision (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 60)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of, first, the decision of the European Commission of 12 August 2014 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of the call for tenders PO/2013-13/SOF relating to support for the European Commission representative in Bulgaria in the context of the organization of public events, and awarding the contract to another tenderer and, second, the ‘subsequent decisions’, including that of 12 September 2014 to conclude the contract for its performance.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 25 May 2016 —

Ice Mountain Ibiza v EUIPO — Etyam (ocean beach club ibiza)

(Case T‑753/14)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ocean beach club ibiza — Earlier national figurative and word marks ocean drive Ibiza-hotel and OCEAN THE GROUP — Annulment of the earlier mark on which the contested decision was based — No need to adjudicate’

EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action brought against the rejection of a trade mark application following the lodging of opposition — Declaration of invalidity of the earlier mark — Application devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 131; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see paras 24, 25)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 July 2014 (Case R 2293/2013-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Etyam and Ice Mountain Ibiza.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action;
Having regard to the wording of Articles 60 and 301 EC, especially to the expressions ‘as regards the third countries concerned’ and ‘with one or more third countries’ used there, those provisions concern the adoption of measures vis-à-vis third countries, since that concept may cover the leaders of such a country and also individuals and entities associated with or controlled, directly or indirectly, by them. The possibility cannot be ruled out that those in charge of certain businesses may be subject to restrictive measures adopted on the basis of Articles 60 and 301 EC, provided it is established that they are associated with the leaders of the third country targeted.

In the light of the objectives of the restrictive measures, namely to prevent any assistance being given to the government targeted, the concept of a person ‘associated with’ must also include persons engaged in activities such as giving financial support to the regime in power and other forms of support, particularly through the intermediary of undertakings. In that regard, in order for restrictive measures to be effective, it clearly must be possible to adopt restrictive measures in respect of any legal person owned by a natural person associated with the leaders of the country concerned. Thus, where the names of legal persons have been entered on a list imposing restrictive measures on the basis that they are owned by a natural person also appearing on that list, the inclusion of those names is legitimately based on Articles 60 and 301 EC.

(see paras 31, 35-37)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 June 2016 — Universal Protein Supplements v EUIPO — H Young Holdings (animal)

(Joined Cases T‑727/14 and T‑728/14)

‛EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative marks animal — Unregistered earlier national word mark ANIMAL — Relative ground for refusal — Application of national law by EUIPO — Article 53(1)(c) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Particulars of the right on which the application for a declaration of invalidity is based — Rule 37(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95’

1. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an earlier right referred to in Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Conditions — Interpretation in the light of EU law — Assessment by reference to the criteria determined by the national law governing the sign relied on (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(4), and 53(1)(c)) (see paras 22-24)

2. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Invalidity action based on the existence of an earlier national right — Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(4), and 53(1)(c); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 37(b)(ii)) (see paras 25-27, 35-39, 44-46)

3. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Use of the mark capable of being prohibited by virtue of another earlier right — Review by the competent bodies of EUIPO and by the Court as to the national law applicable — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(4), and 53(1)(c)) (see paras 47, 48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 July 2014 (Cases R 2054/2013-1 and R 2058/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Universal Protein Supplements and H Young Holdings.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the applications;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — Intercon v Commission

(Case T‑632/14)

‛Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Commission decision to require repayment of the sums paid to the applicant — Contractual nature of the dispute — Article 44(1)(c) and Article 44(5a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991 — Admissibility — Scope of the audit — Documents and observations made after expiry of the prescribed periods’

1. Judicial proceedings — Legal basis of an action — Choice for the applicant and not the EU judicature (see para. 38)

2. Judicial proceedings — General Court seised under an arbitration clause — Application initiating proceedings — Lodging of a copy of the clause awarding jurisdiction — Formal requirements (Art. 272 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 44(5a) (see paras 48, 49)

Re:

Principally, application based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the Commission infringed the provisions of the grant agreement No 224297 relating to financing the project ARTreat, and annulment of the Commission’s letter of 28 July 2014 informing the applicant, on the basis of an audit carried out by it, of the recovery of a sum of EUR 258479.21 which had been unduly paid to the applicant as an EU financial contribution and, alternatively, application based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the sums paid corresponded to eligible expenditure and need not, therefore, be repaid.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;