ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 24 September 2008 – Anvil Knitwear v OHIM – Aprile e Aprile (Aprile)

(Case T-179/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark Aprile – Earlier national word mark ANVIL – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Articles 8(1)(b), 73 and 74 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 55, 57-63)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2007 (Case R-1076/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Anvil Knitwear, Inc. and Aprile e Aprile Srl.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 4 March 2009 – Professional Tennis Registry v OHIM – Registro Profesional de Tenis (PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY)

(Case T-168/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for registration of the figurative mark PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY as a Community trade mark – Earlier national and Community figurative mark RPT Registro Profesional de Tenis, S.L. and earlier national figurative mark RPT European Registry of Professional Tennis – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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, 43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2007, as corrected (Case R 1050/2005‑1), concerning opposition proceedings between Registro Profesional de Tenis, SL and Professional Tennis Registry, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Professional Tennis Registry, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY for goods and services in Classes 16, 25 and 41 – Application No 2826709 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Registro Profesional de Tenis, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative marks RPT Registro Profesional de Tenis, S.L. and RPT European Registry of Professional Tennis for services in Class 41 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division; application for Community mark rejected for goods and services in Classes 16 and 41





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 28 February 2007, as corrected (Case R 1050/2005‑1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Professional Tennis Registry, Inc.;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 18 June 2009 – LIBRO v OHIM – Causley (LiBRO)

(Case T-418/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark LiBRO – Earlier Community figurative mark LIBERO – 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) – Partial refusal of registration – Application for annulment brought by the intervener – Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance – Signature of the pleading setting out grounds of appeal before the Board of Appeal – Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49-50, 59, 70-73)

2. Community trade mark – Procedure before OHIM bodies – Transmission of communications to OHIM – Transmission by fax – Illegible signature (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 80(3) (see para. 30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2007 (Case R 1454/2005-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Dagmar Causley and LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH Community trade mark sought: Word and figurative mark LiBRO for goods and services in classes 2, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42 – Application No 2616753 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Dagmar Causley Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark LIBERO for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 – Community trade mark No 401141 Decision of the Opposition Division: Partial dismissal of the application Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses the application of Dagmar Causley;

3. Orders LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs, save for those of Dagmar Causley;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 – Alber v OHIM (hand grip)

(Case T-391/07)

Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark – Hand grip – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Duty to give reasons – Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) – Principle of examination of the facts of its own motion – Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

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 50-62)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 August 2007 (Case R 361/2007-4) and against the decision of the examiner of OHIM of 16 January 2007 in that case, in so far as it rejects Community trade mark application No 4396727 for certain goods covered by that mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Alfons Alber Community trade mark sought: Three‑dimensional trade mark representing a hand grip in respect of goods in Classes 6 and 8 – Application No 4396727 Decision of the Examiner: Registration partially refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2012 — Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise v Commission

(Case T‑192/07)

Competition — Decision rejecting a complaint — No Community interest — Scope of the complaint — Competence of the author of the act — Duty to state reasons

1. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Summary statement of pleas (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 28)

2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Taking into account the Community interest in investigating a case — Criteria for assessment — Discretion of the Commission — Limits — Judicial review (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see paras 65-67, 80, 105)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision SG-Greffe (2007) D/202076 of 3 April 2007 dismissing the complaint in Case COMP/38863/B2-MODEF in relation to infringements of the EC Treaty.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
31

The Commission points out that, in the judgment on appeal, the Court held that, notwithstanding the annulment of the 2002 decision, the action had to be regarded as admissible when it was brought on 22 November 2007, since the 2002 decision had not been annulled by that date. However, the Court of Justice did not rule on the question whether, given the annulment of the 2002 decision, the action had since become devoid of purpose. On that point, the Commission states, first, that the formal investigation procedure initiated by the 1999 decision concerned the contested measures and, secondly, that the sole legal effect of the contested decision, that is to say, the obligation upon the Federal Republic of Germany to suspend implementation of the contested measures, had already arisen as a result of the 1999 decision to initiate the procedure. As a result of the annulment of the 2002 decision on 1 July 2008, the formal investigation procedure initiated by the 1999 decision had been re-opened in its entirety. The Commission also states that, following the annulment of the 2002 decision, it was required, under Article 233 EC, to take the necessary measures to comply with the annulment judgment, which included bringing the formal investigation to a close by means of a final decision. The Commission concludes that the annulment of the contested decision is no longer capable of procuring any advantage for the applicant inasmuch as, first, the formal investigation procedure remains open and must be brought to a close by means of a final decision and, secondly, the obligation to suspend the implementation of the measures still exists.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see para. 10)

2. Community trade mark – Effects of the Community trade mark – Limitations (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 12(b)) (see paras 24-25)

3. 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 paras 33-35)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2007 (Case R 319/2007-1), relating to an application for registration of the sign E-ship as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 — JOOP! v OHIM (!)

(Case T-75/08)

‛Community trade mark — Application for registration of a figurative Community trade mark representing an exclamation mark — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3)) (see paras 25-29, 41-47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2007 (Case R 1134/2007-1) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: JOOP! GmbH Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark representing an exclamation mark for goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25 — Application No 5332184 Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the 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 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

)

Subject of the case

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

>lt>7

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Longevity Health Products, Inc. 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 27, 52

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 February 2008 (Case R 1527/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Tinkerbell Modas LTDA and Frag Comercio Internacional, SL.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Frag Comercio Internacional, SL, 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, 33

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2008 (Case R 1864/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between José Dias Magalhães & Filhos lda. and Giordano Enterprises Ltd.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Giordano Enterprises Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Surrender, revocation and invalidity

–

Causes of revocation

–

Absence of genuine use of a trade mark

–

Use of the mark in a form which differs through factors not altering the distinctive character of the mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 15(2)(a) and 50(1)(a)) (see paras 42-43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2008 (Case R 1858/2007-4) relating to revocation proceedings between Alfred Hartmann and Atlas Transport GmbH.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

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 9 September 2008 in Case R 1858/2007-4;

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Atlas Transport GmbH;

3. Orders Alfred Hartmann to bear his 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

–

Exception

–

Acquisition of distinctive character through use (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b), and (3)) (see paras 69, 79, 85, 107, 123-124

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2007 (Case R 97/2001-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign representing a frosted white bottle as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Freixenet, SA 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 holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade

–

Use of the sign in trade

–

Meaning (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(4)) (see para. 28

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2008 (Case R 478/2007‑2), concerning opposition proceedings between Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG and Grain Millers, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Grain Millers, Inc. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier 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))

Summary

There is a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark for the relevant public, consisting of German professionals in the metrology field and providers of services thereto, between the figurative sign ‘Metromeet’, in respect of which registration as a Community trade mark is sought for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35 and 41 of the Nice Agreement, and the word sign ‘meeting metro’, previously registered in Germany for goods and services in the same classes.

The mere inversion of elements of a mark cannot allow the conclusion to be drawn that there is no visual similarity. Likewise, the fact that the syllables are pronounced in an inverted order cannot prevent the signs from being similar overall.

In view of the fact, first, that the goods and services at issue are, in part, identical and, in part, at least similar, and, second, that the signs at issue are visually and aurally similar, albeit only slightly, and conceptually identical, the difference between those signs is insufficient to exclude all likelihood of confusion between the trade marks on the part of the public.

(see paras 29-30, 38, 40, 46)
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 23-24, 49

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2008 (Case R 805/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Ares Trading SA and Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>14

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. 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

–

Three-dimensional mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 41-42, 46-48

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 June 2008 (Case R 780/2005-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the representation of a reindeer made of chocolate.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

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

–

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 29, 63-64

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 March 2008 (Case R 1189/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Corporación Habanos, SA and Tabacos de Centroamérica, SL.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Corporación Habanos, SA to bear its own costs and pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

3. Orders Tabacos de Centroamérica, SL to bear its own 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 24-25, 49)

2. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal brought against a decision by a department of OHIM – Examination by the Board of Appeal – Scope – Appeal against a decision having allowed an opposition (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 62(1)) (see paras 59-60)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 403/2006-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Galileo International Technology, LLC and Galileo Sistemas y Servicios, SL.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Galileo International Technology, LLC 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 25, 36, 54, 67

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2008 (Case R 1523/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mary Quant Ltd and Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat to pay the costs.