ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 110)

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 — 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. 25)

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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 47)

4. Community trade mark — Lodging the application for a Community trade mark — Identification of the goods or services concerned by the trade mark — Use of the general indications in the headings of the classes of the Nice classification — Scope (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 2(4)) (see para. 44)

5. Community 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 (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see paras 89, 109)

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 — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 105)

7. 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 mark KARIS and word marks CARYX and AKRIS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 115, 116)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2013 (Case R 1862/2012-5) relating to opposition proceedings between BASF SE and GAT Microencapsulation GmbH (formerly GAT Microencapsulation AG).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Gat Microencapsulation GmbH to pay the costs.
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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 23, 25-27, 41 and 42)
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.

It further 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 was used by several operators. It follows that those operators can have rights over a sign which has acquired a reputation on the market, under an ‘extended’ form of that action, recognised by national case-law.

Public bodies too may be protected by passing off actions to the extent that their activities can generate goodwill. If those bodies make use of a particular sign that belongs to them exclusively, they may rely on the goodwill attached to the marketing of goods and services bearing that sign. Similarly, if those bodies share the use of any sign with other operators, the goodwill may be relied on by the same public bodies and by the operators in question.

In the event that an earlier sign is used by several operators, ownership of the goodwill must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case. Consequently, in order to determine whether the party opposing registration of a certification mark as a Community trade mark is the sole owner of the goodwill, the attractive force which brings in custom in respect of the certification mark must be assessed.

(see paras 34, 35, 38, 39)
1.

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 20(1), and 50(1)) (see paras 16-18)
7.

Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds of persons involved in the misappropriation of public funds and of natural or legal persons, bodies or organisations associated with them — Rights of defence — Notification of inculpatory evidence — Subsequent decision maintaining the name of a person on the list of persons concerned by those measures — No infringement of the right to be heard (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41 and 47; Council Decisions 2011/72/CFSP, 2013/409/CFSP, 2014/49/CFSP and 2015/157/CFSP; Council Regulations No 101/2011, No 735/2013 and No 81/2014) (see paras 127-130, 132, 135)
Case T‑693/13

(publication by extracts)

Aliaksei Mikhalchanka

v

Council of the European Union

‛Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Belarus — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Restrictions on entry into, or transit through, the territory of the European Union — Retention of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned — Journalist — Rights of defence — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment’

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber), 10 May 2016

Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Belarus — Freezing of funds — Rights of defence — Notification of inculpatory elements — Subsequent decision retaining the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned — No new grounds — No infringement of the right to be heard — Annulment of the previous decision for infringement of the right to be heard — Irrelevant

(Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2013/534/CFSP; Council Regulation No 1017/2012, as amended by Regulation No 1054/2013)

See the text of the decision.

(see paras 46-58)
The EU judicature has jurisdiction to hear an action against a decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) taken pursuant to Article 13(4) of Regulation No 340/2008 on the fees and charges payable to ECHA pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals, and the restrictions applicable to those substances (REACH), finding that the applicant does not fulfil the conditions for enjoying the reduction in the fee for medium-sized undertakings and imposing an administrative charge upon it, even if an action brought by the applicant against the contested decision is pending before the Board of Appeal of ECHA.

Article 94(1) of Regulation No 1907/2006 provides that the General Court or the Court of Justice may hear, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, a challenge to a decision of the Board of Appeal or, where there is no right of appeal to the Board of Appeal, a decision of ECHA. In that regard, Article 91(1) of that regulation provides that decisions taken by ECHA pursuant to Articles 9, 20, 27(6), 30(2) and (3) and 51 of the said regulation may form the subject-matter of an action before the Board of Appeal. Those provisions have no connection with the fee to be paid by registering undertakings.

(see paras 18, 19, 21, 23)
80

In that part of the reasons contained in the letter of 22 May 2013, the ECB stated that disclosure of information about the method used under the SMP could undermine intervention measures having an objective which is identical or similar to the one pursued through the SMP. These types of programmes are aimed at encouraging market participants to invest in a category of government bonds, possibly even before the ECB and the Eurosystem NCBs purchase any, in order to take advantage of the price trends triggered by those purchases. They are liable to have a positive effect on all of the bonds in the category targeted. Since the market participants are not familiar with the bonds preferred by the ECB and the Eurosystem NCBs, they will tend to want to invest broadly in the entire category targeted. By contrast, if the market participants were to be granted access to the detailed, broken down information contained in Annexes A and B to the Exchange Agreement, the effectiveness of the intervention measures and, ultimately, the monetary policy, would risk being affected, as would the internal finances of the ECB and the Eurosystem NCBs. In that scenario, the market participants would tend to want to establish prognoses in order to determine more specifically the type of government bonds purchased by the ECB and the Eurosystem NCBs and to concentrate their acquisitions on those types of bonds. On the one hand, there is a risk that it would lead to higher prices for the types of bonds identified by the market participants as liable to be purchased by the ECB and the Eurosystem NCBs. Since those bonds would in fact fit in with the preferences of the ECB and the Eurosystem NCBs, both might be led either to purchase those types of bonds at higher prices or to purchase other bonds not fitting in with their preferences. On the other hand, the ECB and the Eurosystem NCBs could be led to purchase bonds of a type other than the category targeted, in order to encourage market participants to invest in all of the bonds in that category, instead of concentrating on certain types of bonds.
15

After receiving observations from the Spanish Authorities and other interested parties, the Commission on 19 June 2013 adopted Decision 2014/489/EU on State aid SA.28599 ((C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/2010, ex CP 163/2009)) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 52; ‘the contested decision’), the operative part of which provides as follows: ‘Article 1 The state aid granted to the operators of the terrestrial television platform for the deployment, maintenance and operation of the digital terrestrial television network in Area II unlawfully put into effect by [the Kingdom of] Spain in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU is incompatible with the internal market, except for the aid which was granted in compliance with the principle of technological neutrality. Article 2 The individual aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 does not constitute aid if, at the time it is granted, it fulfils the conditions laid down by a regulation adopted pursuant to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 applicable at the time the aid is granted. Article 3 1. [The Kingdom of] Spain shall recover the incompatible aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 from the Digital Terrestrial Television operators, whether they received the aid directly or indirectly. 2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were made available to the beneficiaries until their recovery. 3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004. 4. [The Kingdom of] Spain shall cancel all outstanding payments of aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this decision. Article 4 1. Recovery of the aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective. 2. [The Kingdom of] Spain shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification thereof. 3. Within two months following notification of this Decision, [the Kingdom of] Spain shall submit the following information to the Commission: (a) the list of beneficiaries that have received aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1 and the total amount of aid received by each of them under that scheme, broken down by the categories indicated in section 6.2 above; (b) the total amount (principal and recovery interest) to be recovered from each beneficiary; … Article 5 This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.’
50

In the present case, the EACEA examined the applicant’s dossier on the basis of the material it had produced, and on 4 June 2013 asked it by email for additional documents. In reply to that email, the applicant confirmed by email of the same date that it was ‘the Italian distributor of the film’, although without providing documentary evidence, and on 6 June 2013 sent the EACEA additional information on its experience as a distributor, especially during the previous five years. After an analysis of the entire dossier, the EACEA made a proposal to the Commission that a grant should be refused, and the Commission adopted the decision of 2 August 2013, after following the advisory procedure provided for by Article 4 of Regulation No 182/2011 for a proposal for the allocation of EU funds of less than EUR 300000 in the field of distribution, in accordance with the provisions of Article 10(2) and (3) of Decision No 1718/2006. Recital 3 of the decision of 2 August 2013 took over the reasons stated by the MEDIA 2007 Committee in its opinion of 26 July 2013, which in turn had taken up the Evaluation Committee’s proposal concerning the applicant (see paragraphs 8 to 10 above), namely that the film was distributed in Italy by 01 Distribution, not by the applicant, so that its application could not be selected. On 7 June 2013 the EACEA adopted that ground of refusal by ticking the box in the standard notification form corresponding to the wording ‘the applicant will not carry out himself the theatrical distribution of the film’. On 4 September 2013 the applicant sent the EACEA a letter which must clearly be regarded as a request to review an award decision, within the meaning of point A.7 of Annex III to Decision C(2009) 3355 final as amended.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2015 —

Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL)

(Case T‑85/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DINKOOL — Earlier international figurative mark DIN — Earlier national business identifier DIN — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Non-submission of plea based on insufficient proof of genuine use (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2)) (see para. 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 — Word mark DINKOOL and figurative mark DIN (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 29, 57, 58)

3. 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 — Conditions — Assessment by reference to the criteria determined by the national law governing the sign relied on (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 62, 63)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2013 (Case R 1106/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV and Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);
1.

Community 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 — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 11)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2015 — Yoo Holdings v OHIM — Eckes-Granini Group (YOO)

(Case T‑562/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark YOO — Earlier national and international word marks YO — 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 16, 17, 39)

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 between the goods or services in question — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 29)

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 — Word marks YOO and YO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 41-45)

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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2014 (Case R 762/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Eckes-Granini Group GmbH and Yoo Holdings Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 — Wine in Black v OHIM — Quinta do Noval-Vinhos (Wine in Black)

(Case T‑420/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Wine in Black — Earlier Community word mark NOVAL BLACK — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — 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 15, 40)

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 — Word marks Wine in Black and NOVAL BLACK (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 39, 46)

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

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2014 (Case R 1601/2013‑1), concerning opposition proceedings between Quinta do Noval-Vinhos, SA and Wine in Black GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 March 2014 (Case R 1601/2013‑1);