ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 –

Laboratoire Nuxe v EUIPO — Camille and Tariot (NYouX)

(Case T‑179/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark NYouX — Earlier national word mark NUXE — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Distinctive character — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark—Procedural provisions—Statement of reasons for decisions—First sentence of Article 75 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. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 24-26, 46)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 para. 47)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 NYouX and word mark NUXE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 48, 49, 54-58, 68-76)

5. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 51, 56)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 January 2017 (Case R 718/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Laboratoire Nuxe and, on the other, Ms Camille and Mr Tariot.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 January 2017 (Case R 718/2016-5);
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 April 2018 –

Mitrakos v EUIPO — Belasco Baquedano (YAMAS)

(Case T‑15/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark YAMAS — Earlier EU word mark LLAMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 20-22, 46, 51)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 YAMAS and word mark LLAMA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 27, 31, 35, 57, 59-65)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 32-34)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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—Objective marketing considerations to be taken into account (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 52)

5. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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—Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark—Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 56)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2016 (Case R 532/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Belasco Baquedano and Mr Mitrakos.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 May 2018 –

Item Industrietechnik v EUIPO (EFUSE)

(Case T‑427/17)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark EFUSE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 paras 15, 30)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16-18)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 EFUSE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 22-26, 28, 29, 33)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Meaning—Neologism consisting of elements descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services concerned—Whether included where the nature of the combination is not unusual (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 27)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2017 (Case R 1882/2016-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign EFUSE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Form of appeal and period within which it must be brought—Pleading setting out the grounds lodged within the period prescribed—Condition of admissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 72(2), Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 60(1); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 70(2), 72(4) and 80(2))

(see paras 27-33)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 — Lotte v EUIPO — Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland (Representation of a koala bear)

(Case T‑41/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark representing koalas — Earlier national three-dimensional mark KOALA-BÄREN Schöller lustige Gebäckfiguren — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Power to alter decisions)

1. EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Jurisdiction of the General Court—Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it—Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 22)

2. EU 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. 40)

3. EU trade mark—Observations of third parties and opposition—Examination of the opposition—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Genuine use—Meaning—Criteria for assessment—Requirement of solid and objective evidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 47-49, 51, 52)

4. EU trade mark—Observations of third parties and opposition—Examination of the opposition—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Genuine use—Application of the criteria to the case in question (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 50)

5. EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision—Limits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 65)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2016 (Case R 0250/2016-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Nestlé Schöller GmbH & Co. KG and Lotte.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 October 2016 (Case R 0250/2016-5) in so far as, in that decision, the Board of Appeal upheld the opposition for ‘pastries filled with chocolate cream; chocolate; confectionery products; pastry; cookies; crackers; edible ices; pastry and confectionery’ in Class 30;

2. Rejects the opposition brought by Nestlé Schöller GmbH & Co. KG, legal predecessor of Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH, for ‘pastries filled with chocolate cream; chocolate; confectionery products; pastry; cookies; crackers; edible ices; pastry and confectionery’ in Class 30;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Lotte Co Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court;
Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute—Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d) and 177(1)(d))

(see paras 15, 16)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 September 2018 –

Sevenfriday v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENFRIDAY)

(Case T‑448/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SEVENFRIDAY — Earlier EU word mark SEVEN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 20-22, 53, 70)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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—Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 28, 29)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 SEVENFRIDAY and SEVEN (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 52, 68, 71, 72)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Signs of which a trade mark may consist—Letters and numbers—Condition—Distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 4 and 7(1)(b)) (see para. 61)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2017 (Case R 2291/2016-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Seven and Sevenfriday.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
It follows that, first, a procedure rule of Parliament can provide for the possibility of penalising members for their comments only in the event that those comments undermine the proper functioning of the Parliament or pose a serious threat to society, such as incitement to violence or racial hatred. Secondly, the power, granted to parliaments, to impose disciplinary sanctions in order to ensure the proper conduct of their business or the protection of certain fundamental rights, principles or freedoms should be reconciled with the need to ensure respect for the freedom of expression of members of parliament.

The freedom of expression of members of parliament must be afforded greater protection in the light of the fundamental importance which Parliament plays in a democratic society. However, while it is true that speech in Parliament enjoys an elevated level of protection, in view of the close nexus between an effective political democracy and the operation of Parliament, the exercise of free speech in Parliament may have to yield on occasions to the legitimate interests of protecting the orderly conduct of parliamentary business as well as the protection of the rights of members of parliament.

Having regard to the particular importance of the freedom of expression of members of parliament and the strict limits on which restrictions may be imposed on that freedom, Rules 11 and 166 of the Rules of Procedure must be interpreted as preventing an MEP from being penalised for comments made in the course of his parliamentary functions, in the absence of serious disorder during the session or a serious disruption of the business of Parliament. In addition, Rule 166(2) of the Rules of Procedure covers the conduct of MEPs. By contrast, comments, remarks and speeches are not referred to and are therefore not likely to be subject, as such, to penalties. The fact that Rule 11(3) of the Rules of Procedure contains, in the second subparagraph thereof, a reference to ‘defamatory, racist or xenophobic language or behaviour’ cannot invalidate that conclusion. An infringement of the principles set out in Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure, to which Rule 166(1) thereof refers, if it were established, cannot, of itself, be penalised as such; it can only be penalised where it is accompanied by serious disorder or disruption of the business of Parliament.

(see paras 65, 67, 70)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 November 2018 –

TeamBank v EUIPO — Fio Systems (FYYO)

(Case T‑826/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark FYYO — Earlier EU word mark FIO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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, 36)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 23, 31, 32)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 FYYO and FIO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27-30, 35, 43, 44)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of

6 November 2017 (Case R 2337/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Fio Systems and TeamBank Nürnberg.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU agencies — Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) — Appeals procedure — Action before the Board of Appeal of ACER — Obligation to state reasons for decisions — Scope

(Art. 296, second para. TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(c); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 713/2009, Art. 19)

(see paras 40, 41, 43)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2018 –

Maico Holding v EUIPO — Eico (Eico)

(Case T‑668/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Eico — Earlier EU word mark MAICO — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 20)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 21, 24)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 28)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 para. 41)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 Eico and MAICO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42-45)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2017 (Case R 2089/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Maico Holding and Eico.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 –

Lincoln Global v EUIPO (FLEXCUT)

(Case T‑736/17)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark FLEXCUT — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Meaning — Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16-19, 33)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20, 40)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 FLEXCUT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 24, 27-32, 34-39, 42-45, 50)

5. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (see paras 46-49)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Decisions of national authorities not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 51)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2017 (Case R 2225/2016-4), relating to the application for registration of the word sign FLEXCUT as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;