ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
61

It must therefore be held that the applicant had the opportunity, both before the Opposition Division and before the Board of Appeal, to rely on its arguments relating to the likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and all of the earlier marks, but that it chose not to set out arguments specific to each of the earlier marks, since it preferred to rely, in a generic and therefore undifferentiated manner, on the earlier trade marks WESERGOLD (paragraph 1 of its notice of opposition of 26 September 2008), Wesergold (paragraph 3 of that notice of opposition) or WeserGold (paragraph 8 of that notice of opposition). It is common ground that, by letter of 22 December 2009, the applicant put forward arguments, in the context of the action brought by the intervener against the Opposition Division’s decision, relating to the question whether there was a likelihood of confusion between the earlier trade marks and the mark applied for, stating that several earlier marks relied on had in common the word ‘wesergold’ with the letters ‘w’ and ‘g’ in upper case. In so far as the opposition was based on all of the earlier trade marks mentioned in paragraphs 7 to 11 above and since the Board of Appeal had jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, to examine the likelihood of confusion between the trade mark applied for and all of the earlier trade marks, it was for the applicant, in accordance with Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, to submit, in the context of the appeal before the Board of Appeal, its observations on those earlier trade marks in a way specific to each of them, in so far as that could be justified. The applicant cannot therefore properly claim that it could not foresee that the Board of Appeal would base its examination of the likelihood of confusion on all of the earlier trade marks (see, to that effect, judgment in BELLRAM, cited in paragraph 60 above, EU:T:2013:11, paragraph 28).
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 23, 24, 43‑51, 54

)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2012 — EyeSense v OHIM – Osypka Medical (ISENSE)

(Case T-207/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ISENSE — Earlier national word mark EyeSense — 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 17-18, 42-47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2011 (Case R 1098/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between EyeSense AG and Osypka Medical GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders EyeSense AG to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2012 — EyeSense v OHIM – Osypka Medical (ISENSE)

(Case T-207/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ISENSE — Earlier national word mark EyeSense — 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 17-18, 42-47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2011 (Case R 1098/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between EyeSense AG and Osypka Medical GmbH.

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 68, 73-76 ) Subject of the case Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2010 (Case R 821/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Golfino AG and Mizuno KK. Operative part Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Mizuno KK to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2012 — Mizuno v OHIM — Golfino (G)

(Case T-101/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark G — Earlier Community figurative mark G+ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — 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 31, 68, 73-76)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2010 (Case R 821/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Golfino AG and Mizuno KK.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 June 2012 — Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum van Amsterdam v OHIM — Investimust (COLLEGE)

(Case T-165/11)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark COLLEGE — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c), and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 21, 22, 24-34, 37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2011 (Case R 508/2010-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum van Amsterdam and Investimust SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Consorzio vino Chianti Classico v OHIM — FFR (F.F.R.)

(Case T-143/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark ‘F.F.R.’ — Earlier national figurative marks CHIANTI CLASSICO — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18)

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 — Figurative marks F. F. R. and CHIANTI CLASSICO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 51, 55-62)

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. 27)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 64, 65)

5. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Ability of General Court to amend the contested decision — Limits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 70)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 January 2011 (Case R 43/2010-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Consorzio vino Chianti Classico and Fédération française de rugby (FFR).

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 10 January 2011 (Case R 43/2010-4) in so far as the Board of Appeal rejected the opposition based on Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 November 2012 — tesa v OHIM — Superquímica (tesa TACK)

(Case T-555/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark tesa TACK — Earlier national figurative mark TACK Ceys — Relative ground for refusal — 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20-22, 25, 52)

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 — Figurative marks tesa TACK and TACK Ceys (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 24, 39, 43, 44, 47, 56-58)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2011 (Case R 866/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between La Superquímica, SA and tesa SE.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders tesa SE to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 November 2012 — tesa v OHIM — Superquímica (tesa TACK)

(Case T-555/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark tesa TACK — Earlier national figurative mark TACK Ceys — Relative ground for refusal — 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20-22, 25, 52)

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 — Figurative marks tesa TACK and TACK Ceys (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 24, 39, 43, 44, 47, 56-58)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2011 (Case R 866/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between La Superquímica, SA and tesa SE.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Claim appearing in the application and seeking to demonstrate genuine use of the earlier mark — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 65(2) and 76) (see paras 15-20)

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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23-27, 48)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark interdit de me gronder IDMG and word mark DMG (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 30, 36, 47, 50)

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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 53)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 July 2011 (Case R 1814/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Euro Shoe Unie and Kokomarina.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Kokomarina to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

—

Actionable measures

—

Concept

—

Measures producing binding legal effects

—

Measures altering the applicant’s legal situation

—

Decision of the Parliament’s Committee on Petitions ruling on the action to be taken on a petition declared admissible

—

Not included (Arts 227 TFEU and 263 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 44; Internal Regulation of the European Parliament, Art. 202) (see paras 15, 18-23

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions of 25 January 2011 which concluded the examination of the petition submitted by the applicant on 2 October 2010 (petition No 1188/2010), which had been declared admissible.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Mr Peter Schönberger to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Summary statement of pleas (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 14, 15)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Limitation of the list of products and services after the decision of the Board of Appeal — Consequences (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 43(1)) (see paras 21-23)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark B BERG and word mark Christian Berg (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 38, 59, 63-67, 72)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2011 (Case R 2014/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Anson’s Herrenhaus KG and Caventa AG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Caventa AG to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 May 2013 — Kieffer Omnitec v Commission

(Case T-288/11)

‛Public service contracts — Procurement procedure — Maintenance of the HVAC, sprinkler and water and sanitary installations in the Joseph-Bech building in Luxembourg — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Equal treatment — Transparency — Proportionality — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to state reasons’

1. EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Public contracts awarded by EU institutions — Inapplicability of the directives concerning the award of public works, supply and service contracts by the institutions of the Member States — Exception — Questions concerning the thresholds determining the rules for publication, the choice of procedures and corresponding time-limits (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 105) (see para. 23)

2. EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Duty to comply with the principle of equal treatment of tenderers — Need to ensure equal opportunities and comply with the principle of transparency — Criteria laid down for the contract document — Clear, precise and unequivocal — Proportionate (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 89(1) and 92) (see paras 25-29, 34, 41)

3. EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (see paras 46, 47)

4. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Plea raised for the first time at the reply stage — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2)) (see para. 72)

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 — Assessment in the light of information available to the applicant at the time the action brought (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)(a)) (see paras 79-84)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 April 2001 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the procurement procedure relating to the conclusion of a contract for maintenance of HVAC, sprinkler and water and sanitary installations at the Joseph-Bech Building in Luxembourg and awarding the contract to another tenderer (OJ 2010/S 241 367523).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Own resources of the European Union — Regulation on protection of the financial interests of the Union — Prosecution of irregularities — Limitation period — Decision to reduce financial assistance initially granted under the European Social Fund — Competent national authority entrusted with recovery of sums unduly paid — Inapplicability of the limitation period against the Commission (Council Regulation No 2988/95, Art. 3(1)) (see paras 42-48, 50, 52)

2. EU law — Principles — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Administrative procedure — Criteria for assessment (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1)) (see paras 56-58)

3. Social policy — European Social Fund — Financial assistance for vocational training — Accuracy of facts and accounts in final payment claims to be certified by the Member State — Scope and limits — Decision to reduce assistance initially granted — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Rights of defence — No infringement (Council Regulation No 2950/83, Arts 6(1), and 7(1); Council Decision 83/516, Art. 2(2); Commission Decision 83/673, Art. 7) (see paras 59, 63, 68, 71, 73, 74)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision, on the proposition of a Member State, reducing assistance for the European Social Fund for vocational training — No infringement of the duty to state reasons (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 78-81, 94)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 27 October 2010 setting the final amount of the expenditure eligible for assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF), granted to the applicant for training operations by Decision C(88) 831 of 29 April 1988 for the funding of training operations (file 88 0369 P1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — McNeil v OHIM — Alkalon (NICORONO)

(Case T-580/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark NICORONO — Earlier Community word mark NICORETTE — Relative ground for refusal — 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18-20, 72)

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 — Attention level of the public — Pharmaceutical products (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 27)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks NICORONO and NICORETTE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 70, 77)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 35, 41)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Assessment of the distinctiveness of an element composing a trade mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 August 2011 (Case R 1582/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between McNeil AB and Alkalon ApS.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 August 2011 (Case R 1582/2010-2);