ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

Summary

1. Where a composite mark is composed by juxtaposing one element and another mark, that latter mark, even if it is not the dominant element in the composite mark, still can have an independent distinctive role therein. In such a case, the composite mark and that other mark, which has been reproduced identically in the composite mark, may be held to be similar for the purposes of the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

In the event that the earlier mark is not reproduced identically in the later mark, it is still possible that the signs at issue are similar on account of the similarity between the earlier mark and one element of the later mark which has an independent distinctive role.

(see para. 60)

2. While it is true that it is necessary to examine the distinctiveness of an element of a composite mark at the stage of assessing the similarity of the signs in order to determine any dominant element of the sign, the degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark is an element to be taken into account in the context of the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. It is therefore not appropriate to take account of what may be a low degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark at the stage of assessing the similarity of the signs.

(see para. 65)
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 earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22-23, 43-45

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 1694/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between ALK-Abelló A/S and Mundipharma AG.

Information relating to the case

>lt>11

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mundipharma AG to pay the costs, except those incurred by ALK‑Abelló A/S;

3. Orders ALK-Abelló to bear its own 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 devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 24, 31-32

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 July 2008 (Case R 666/2008-1), concerning an application for the registration of the figurative sign Superleggera as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Zeta Europe BV to pay the costs.
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 earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 59-60

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2008 (Case R 1408/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Nicolas Wessang and Greinwald GmbH.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

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) (OHIM) of 17 September 2008 (Case R 1408/2007-4);

2. Orders Greinwald GmbH to pay its own costs and one third of those of Nicolas Wessang;

3. Orders Mr Wessang to pay two thirds of his own costs;

4. Orders OHIM to pay its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Surrender, revocation and invalidity

–

Relative grounds of invalidity

–

Registration contrary to Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 8(4) and 52(1)(c)) (see paras 35-38

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2008 (Case R 1277/2007-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Granuflex Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft and Granuband BV.

Information relating to the case

>lt>19

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Granuband BV to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see para. 24)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 63-64, 80)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 112)

Subject of the case

Re:

First, application for the annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 13 October 2008, rejecting the bids submitted by the applicant for each of the three lots relating to open invitation to tender DG ENV.C2/FRA/2008/0017 ‘Framework contract for Emission Trading Scheme – CITL/CR’ (2008/ S 72-096229) and to award those contracts to another tenderer and, secondly, a claim for damages.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE 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 devoid of any distinctive character

–

Exception

–

Acquisition of distinctive character through use

–

Three-dimensional mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3)) (see paras 59, 67-71

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2008 (Case R 1332/2005-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Observations of third parties and opposition

–

Examination of the opposition

–

Failure, within the prescribed period, to produce the translation of the certificate of registration of the earlier national mark

–

Impact on the procedure before the Opposition Division (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 17(2)) (see paras 32-33

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 August 2008 (Case R 849/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between adidas AG and Patrick Holding ApS.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders adidas AG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid – Concept – Aid granted by a public undertaking – State-controlled undertaking – Whether aid measure automatically attributable to the State – Not automatically attributable – Series of indicators to be taken into consideration (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 50-54, 63-69)

2. State aid – Concept – Guarantee given by the State – Included – State resources not immediately and certainly mobilised – Not relevant (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 89-90)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Article 16 of Commission Decision 2009/610/EC of 2 July 2008 on the measures C 16/04 (ex NN 29/04, CP 71/02 and CP 133/05) implemented by Greece in favour of Hellenic Shipyards SA (OJ 2009 L 225, p. 104).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Elliniki Nafpigokataskevastiki AE Chartofylakeiou, Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft GmbH and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Trapeza Peiraios AE.
Keywords



Keywords

Budget of the European Union — Community financial assistance — Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the aid — Financing covering only expenses actually incurred — Proof of the reality of the expenses declared — Absence — Ineligible expenses (Art. 274 EC) (see paras 48-50, 99)

2. Budget of the European Union — Community financial assistance — Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the aid — Decision to reduce the amount of aid by reason of irregularities — Account taken of irregularities which did not have a precise financial impact — Lawfulness (Art. 274 EC) (see para. 51)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Review of legality — Criteria — Account taken only of the factual and legal elements existing at the date on which the contested measure was adopted (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 69)

2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement borne by the Commission — Extent of the burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 82, 129)

3. Union law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Presumption of innocence — Procedures in competition matters — Decision finding an infringement but not imposing a fine — Applicability (Art. 81(1) EC; Art. 6(2) EU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48(1)) (see paras 83-87)

4. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Means of proof — Reliance on a body of evidence — Degree of evidential value necessary as regards items of evidence viewed in isolation — Evidence based solely on the conduct of undertakings — Evidential obligations of undertakings disputing the existence of the infringement — Obligations of the Commission challenging the plausibility of the explanations proposed by the undertakings (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 88-92, 98, 152)

5. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Agreements which continue to produce their effects after they have formally ceased to be in force — Application of Article 81 EC (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 114)

6. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Concerted practice — Parallel conduct — Presumption that a concertation exists — Limits — Refusal by national copyright management societies to allow a user established in another Member State direct access to their repertoire — Adverse effect on competition (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 128)

7. Actions for annulment — Judicial review — Limits on jurisdiction (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 174)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Slovenský ochranný Zväz Autorský pre práva k hudobným dielam (SOZA);

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2013 — Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber and Others v Council

(Case T‑537/08)

‛Dumping — Imports of polyester staple fibres originating in China — Maintenance of anti-dumping duties following a partial interim review — Action for annulment — Direct and individual concern — Admissibility — Equal treatment and non-discrimination — Article 9(5) and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 9(5) and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Producer and exporter undertakings identified in the regulation or concerned by the preliminary investigations — Admissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 893/2008) (see paras 22-29)

2. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Principle of equal treatment in relation to imports from various countries — Scope in relation to products from various countries, all of which dumped, but some concerned by a re-examination procedure of a definitive duty and others by an initial investigation (Agreement on the implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ‘1994 Anti-dumping Agreement’, Art. 9.2; Council Regulations No 384/96, Arts 5, 9(2) and (5), 11(3), and 21, No 428/2005, No 893/2008 and No 1225/2009, Arts 5, 9(2) and (5), 11(3), and 21; Commission Decision 2007/430) (see paras 41-45, 47-52)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 893/2008 of 10 September 2008 maintaining the anti-dumping duties on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in Belarus, the People’s Republic of China, Saudi Arabia and Korea following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2008 L 247, p. 1), as regards the applicants.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it has been brought by Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, NingBo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd and Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co. Ltd;

2. Dismisses the action as unfounded in so far as it has been brought by Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, Jiangyin Changlong Chemical Fibre Co. Ltd and Xiake Color Spinning Co. Ltd;

3. Orders Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber, Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber, Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber, Jiangyin Changlong Chemical Fibre, NingBo Dafa Chemical Fiber, Xiake Color Spinning, Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber and Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre to bear their own costs and to pay, jointly and severally, those incurred by the Council of the European Union;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 – Bastos Viegas v OHIM – Fabre Médicament (OPDREX)

(Case T-33/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark OPDREX – Earlier national word mark OPTREX – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 28, 35-37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2007 (Case R 1238/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pierre Fabre Médicament SA and Bastos Viegas, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bastos Viegas, SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark OPDREX for goods in Classes 5 and 10 and services in Class 35 – Application No 2429249 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Pierre Fabre Médicament, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘OPTREX’ for goods in Class 5 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld, in respect of certain goods in Classes 5 and 10 Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision, in so far as it rejects the Community trade mark application in respect of ‘surgical apparatus and instruments’ in Class 10





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Before it is possible to assess whether an undertaking such as the applicant has a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 EC, it is necessary to define the relevant market, both from the point of view of the goods or services concerned and from the geographic point of view. The purpose of that market definition is to define the perimeter within which it must be assessed whether an undertaking is in a position to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and consumers.

For the purposes of defining the relevant market in order to apply Article 82 EC, the possibilities of competition must be assessed in the context of the market comprising the totality of the products which, with respect to their characteristics, are particularly suitable for satisfying constant needs and are only to a limited extent interchangeable with other goods or services; these possibilities of competition must also be assessed in the light of competitive conditions and the structure of supply and demand. As stated, in particular, in paragraph 7 of the Commission Notice on the definition of the relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law, the relevant product market therefore comprises all the products or services which are regarded as substitutable by the consumer, by reason of the products’ characteristics, their prices and their intended use.

(see paras 60, 61)
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 8 July 2009 – Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel v OHIM – Schwarzbräu (Alaska)

(Case T-226/08)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark Alaska – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 22, 36, 38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2008 (Case R 1124/2004‑4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH and Schwarzbräu GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark Alaska for goods in Class 32 – Community trade mark No 505503 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Schwarzbräu GmbH Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned granted in part Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2009 – Longevity Health Products v OHIM – Merck (Kids Vits)

(Case T-484/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark Kids Vits – Earlier Community word mark VITS4KIDS – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 716/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Merck KGaA and Longevity Health Products, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Longevity Health Products, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark Kids Vits for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 – Application No 3979143 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Merck KGaA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark VITS4KIDS for goods in Class 5 – Community trade mark No 3128196 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 28 October 2009 – X-Technology R & D Swiss v OHIM – Ipko-Amcor (First-On-Skin)

(Case T-273/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for the word trade mark First-On-Skin – Earlier national word trade mark FIRST – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 42-43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 May 2008 (Case R 281/2007-4) concerning an opposition procedure between X-Technology R & D Swiss GmbH and Ipko-Amcor BV.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: X-Technology R & D Swiss GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word mark First-On-Skin for goods in Classes 18, 23 and 25 – Application No 4019981 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ipko-Amcor BV Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark FIRST for goods in Class 25 (Benelux Registration No 401666), the objection having been lodged against registration for goods in Class 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;