ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 January 2012 — Storck v OHIM — RAI (Ragolizia)

(Case T-462/09)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Ragolizia — Earlier Community word mark FAVOLIZIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2009 (Case R 1779/2008-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Radiotelevisione italiana SpA (RAI) and August Storck KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 January 2012 — Storck v OHIM — RAI (Ragolizia)

(Case T-462/09)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Ragolizia — Earlier Community word mark FAVOLIZIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2009 (Case R 1779/2008-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Radiotelevisione italiana SpA (RAI) and August Storck KG.

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

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 21, 39, 44-45, 48

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 (Case R 1457/2008-1) relating to an application for registration of the word mark PASSIONATELY SWISS as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mövenpick Holding to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2012 — Hipp v OHIM — Nestlé (Bebio)

(Case T-41/09)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Bebio — Earlier Community word mark and international word mark BEBA — Partial refusal of registration — 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 30, 55-57)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 November 2008 (Case R 1790/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Société des Produits Nestlé, S.A. and Hipp & Co KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hipp & Co. KG to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2012 — Hipp v OHIM — Nestlé (Bebio)

(Case T-41/09)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Bebio — Earlier Community word mark and international word mark BEBA — Partial refusal of registration — 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 30, 55-57)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 November 2008 (Case R 1790/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Société des Produits Nestlé, S.A. and Hipp & Co KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 31 January 2012 — Spar v OHIM — Spa Group Europe (SPA GROUP)

(Case T-378/09)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark SPA GROUP — Earlier national figurative marks SPAR — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 54, 69-74)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 123/2008-1) in relation to opposition proceedings between Spar Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Spa Group Europe Ltd & Co. KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Spar Handelsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 31 January 2012 — Spar v OHIM — Spa Group Europe (SPA GROUP)

(Case T-378/09)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark SPA GROUP — Earlier national figurative marks SPAR — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 54, 69-74)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 123/2008-1) in relation to opposition proceedings between Spar Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Spa Group Europe Ltd & Co. KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords



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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 28, 43-45

)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 June 2012 — Meda Pharma v OHIM — Nycomed (ALLERNIL)

(Joined Cases T-492/09 and T-147/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark ALLERNIL — Application for Community word mark ALLERNIL — Earlier national word mark ALLERGODIL — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Grounds — Article 75 of Regulation 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 52)

Re:

Two actions brought against two decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2009 (Cases R 1386/2007-4 and R 697/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Meda Pharma GmbH & Co. KG and Nycomed GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — medi v OHIM (medi)

(Case T-470/09)

‛Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark medi — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2) 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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 16)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18, 31)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark medi (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 36, 38)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of registrability by the Office — Production of evidence — Not required (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 22)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States — Effect (see para. 41)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2009 (Case R 692/2008-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign medi as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
5.

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 (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3), fourth para.) (see para. 165)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 July 2010 – Commission v Antiche Terre

(Case T-51/09)

Arbitration clause – Programme concerning the promotion of energy technologies for Europe (Thermie) – Contract concerning the project for the building in Umbertide (Italy) of an electricity generating plant using an innovative agro-forestry biomass combustion technology – Substantial amendment to the conditions for performance of the contract – Termination – Reimbursement of sums paid – Interest

Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 46, 50-60, 79-82, 85)

Re:

ACTION brought by the Commission under Article 238 EC seeking an order that Antiche Terre reimburse the sums paid by the Community in performance of contract no BM/188/96 of 23 December 1996, concluded with three companies, including Antiche Terre, under the Thermie programme.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Antiche Terre Soc. Coop. rl Società Agricola to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 479 332.40, together with late-payment interest at the Italian statutory rate, calculated in accordance with the rates applicable from 4 January 2004 until payment in full of the debt, after deduction of the sum of EUR 461 979 recovered by the Commission following the implementation on 25 January 2005 of the bank guarantee of which it was beneficiary;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2010 – Deutsche Bahn v OHIM (Horizontal combination of the colours grey and red)

(Case T-404/09)

Community trade mark – Application for Community trade mark consisting in a horizontal combination of the colours grey and red – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 28-37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 (Case R-379/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of a colour sign, consisting in the combination of the colours grey and red, as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Deutsche Bahn AG Community trade mark sought: Trade mark consisting of the combination of the colours grey and red for services in Class 39 – Application No 6733315 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 October 2010 – Deutsche Behindertenhilfe – Aktion Mensch v OHIM (diegesellschafter.de)

(Case T-47/09)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark diegesellschafter.de – 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)

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 29, 49-50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 November 2008 (Case R 1094/2008-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign diegesellschafter.de as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Deutsche Behindertenhilfe – Aktion Mensch eV Community trade mark sought: Word mark ‘diegesellschafter.de’ for services in Classes 35 and 41 –Application No 460372 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 December 2010 – Longevity Health Products v OHIM – Gruppo Lepetit (RESVEROL)

(Case T-363/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark RESVEROL – Earlier international word mark LESTEROL – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 32-33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2009 (Case R 1204/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Gruppo Lepetit SpA 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 RESVEROL for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 – Application No 5244512 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Gruppo Lepetit SpA Mark or sign cited in opposition: National trade mark registrations of the mark LESTEROL for goods in Class 5 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 General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 December 2010 – Wind v OHIM – Sanyang Industry (Wind)

(Case T-451/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark Wind – Earlier national figurative mark Wind – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – No similarity of goods and services

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see points 21, 23-32)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2009 (Case R 1470/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Harry Wind and Sanyang Industry Co., Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Sanyang Industry Co., Ltd Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Wind for goods and services in Classes 11, 12 and 37 – Application No 3362605 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Harry Wind Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark registration of the figurative mark Wind for services in Class 37 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 – Greece v Commission

(Case T-184/09)

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector – Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 and Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 – Assessment of the risk of financial loss to the EAGGF – Principle of proportionality

1. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Definitive refusal to accept responsibility for certain expenses – Need for a prior inter partes procedure – Communication by the Commission of the results of verifications – Duty to submit an assessment of the expenses to be disallowed before communication of the results of the verifications – None – Infringement of defence rights – None (Commission Regulations Nos 1663/95, modified by Regulation No 2245/1999, Art. 8, and 885/2006, Art. 11) (see paras 39-40, 44-48, 50, 52)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF – Obligation respective of the mere fact of the close association of the addressee Member State with the process of establishing the decision (Art. 253 EC) (see points 56-57)

3. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Financial correction – Conditions – Existence of significant failure to act exposing the EAGGF to a real risk of loss (Council Regulations Nos 729/70 and 1258/1999, Art. 7(4)) (see paras 59-65)

4. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Disallowance of irregular expenses – Finding of failures in the control system implemented by a Member State – Blanket correction of 10% of expenses – Lawfulness – Conditions – Lack of sufficient control mechanisms – Breach of principle of proportionality – None (Commission Decision 2009/253) (see paras 70-73)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/253/EC of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2009 L 75, p. 15), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the context of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 – Olymp Bezner v OHIM – Bellido (OLYMP)

(Case T-204/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark OLYMP – Earlier national figurative mark OLIMPO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – 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 28, 57-60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2009 (Case R 598/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Bellido SA and Olymp Bezner GmbH & Co. KG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Olymp Bezner GmbH & Co. KG Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark OLYMP for goods in Class 25 – Application No 4713293 Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Miguel Bellido, SA Trade mark of the party seeking cancellation: Spanish trade mark registration of the figurative mark OLIMPO for goods in Class 25 Decision of the Cancellation Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2011 – United States Polo Association v OHIM – Textiles CMG (U.S. POLO ASSN.)

(Case T-228/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark U.S. POLO ASSN. – Earlier Community and national word marks POLO-POLO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – 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 para. 56) (see paras 27, 52, 60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 886/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Textiles CMG, SA and United States Polo Association.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: United States Polo Association Community trade mark sought: Word mark U.S. POLO ASSN. for goods in Classes 9, 20, 21, 24 and 27 – Application No 4567483 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Textiles CMG, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration of the word mark POLO‑POLO for goods in Class 24; Community trade mark registration of the word mark POLO‑POLO for goods in Classes 24, 25 and 39 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in respect of all the products in dispute Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;