ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Legality of the decision of a Board of Appeal adjudicating in opposition proceedings — Challenge by the adducing of new facts — Inadmissibility — Account taken, for the purposes of interpreting EU law, of EU, national or international case-law not cited before the OHIM bodies — Admissibility (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see paras 22, 23)

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 27, 29, 81, 84)

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 eventer EVENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS and word mark Event (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38, 57, 67, 74, 80, 83, 92)

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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment — Complementary nature of the goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 50)

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. 58)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 60, 63)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2011 (Case R 939/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Event Holding GmbH & Co. KG and CBT Comunicación Multimedia, SL.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Event Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see para. 17)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Word mark BIODERMA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c), and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 38-40, 42-55, 62-64)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2011 (Case R 861/2009-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Cabinet Continental and Laboratoire Bioderma.

Operative part

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 2011 (Case R 861/2009-1) in so far as concerns dietetic substances adapted for medical use, in Class 5;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Laboratoire Bioderma to bear its own costs and half of those incurred by OHIM and Cabinet Continental;

4. Orders OHIM and Cabinet Continental to bear half of their own costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 14 May 2013 — Morelli v OHIM — Associazione nazionale circolo del popolo della libertà and Brambilla (PARTITO DELLA LIBERTA’)

(Cases T-321/11 and T-322/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community word mark PARTITO DELLA LIBERTA’ and the Community figurative mark Partito della Libertà — Name of the earlier national domain name ‘partitodellaliberta.it’ — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Failure to demonstrate the use of the earlier domain name ‘partitodellaliberta.it’ in the course of trade’

1. 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 — Conditions — Interpretation in the light of EU law (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 29-31)

2. 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 — Concept — Use in the context of a commercial activity for economic advantage (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 32, 33)

3. 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 — Local scope of sign (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 34, 35)

4. 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 — Temporal criterion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)(a)) (see para. 36)

5. 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 — Local scope of sign — Word and figurative marks PARTITO DELLA LIBERTA’ and Partito della Libertà — Domain name ‘partitodellaliberta.it’ (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 40, 43, 44, 50)

Re:

ACTIONS brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2011 (Cases R 1303/2010-1 and R 1304/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Raffaello Morelli, and, respectively, l’Associazione nazionale circolo del popolo della libertà and Mrs Michela Vittoria Brambilla.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-321/11 and T-322/11 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — Beifa Group v OHIM — Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhäußer (Instruments for writing)

(Case T-608/11)

‛Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an instrument for writing — Earlier national figurative and three-dimensional trademarks — Ground for invalidity — Use in the Community design of an earlier sign the holder of which has the right to prohibit such use — Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision’

1. Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Obligation to implement — Scope — Both the operative part and the grounds of the judgment to be taken into account (Art. 266 TFEU) (see para. 33)

2. Community design — Appeals procedure — Action brought against a decision taken by an OHIM body — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 25(1), and 60(1)) (see paras 37, 56)

3. Community design — Procedural provisions — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62) (see paras 42, 51)

4. Community design — Appeals procedure — Appeal brought against a decision of a unit of the Office — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 63) (see para. 46)

5. Community design — Ground for invalidity — Use of a distinctive sign in a later design — Proof of use of the distinctive sign — Request presented expressly and on time by the applicant — Possibility of submitting the application for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 25(1)(e)) (see paras 58, 59, 89, 90)

6. Community design — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62) (see paras 67, 68)

7. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Invalid plea in law — Concept (see para. 106)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 August 2011 (Case R 1838/2010-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhäußer GmbH & Co. KG and Ningbo Beifa Group Co., Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
2.

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope for legislative measures — Tariff classification rules — Included — Act comprising implementing measures within the meaning of that treaty provision (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 289(1) to (3) TFEU; Commission Regulation No 603/2011) (see paras 57, 72-75)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition — Administrative procedure — Request for information — Indication of the legal basis and the purpose of the request — Scope — Infringement of the duty to state reasons — None (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18(3)) (see paras 26, 29, 36, 42)

2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Observance of the rights of the defence — Possibility of the undertaking concerned fully relying on those rights only after the sending of the statement of objections (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003) (see paras 32, 33, 37)

3. Competition — Administrative procedure — Request for information — Indication of the legal basis and the purpose of the request — Requirement of a necessary link between the information requested and the infringement investigated — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Scope (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18(3)) (see paras 34, 52)

4. Competition — Administrative procedure — Request for information — Powers of the Commission — Limit — Observance of the principle of proportionality — Request for information already in the possession of the Commission — Infringement of the said principle — Request for further clarification of information previously supplied — Lawfulness (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18(3)) (see paras 72-74, 76, 79)

5. Competition — Administrative procedure — Request for information — Powers of the Commission — Power to issue a request involving the marshalling of the information sought — Limits (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18) (see paras 85, 86)

6. Competition — Administrative procedure — Request for information — Powers of the Commission — Limit — Observance of the principle of proportionality — Time limit for reply notified to the undertaking — Assessment of proportionality (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18(3)) (see paras 92, 104-107)

7. Competition — Administrative procedure — Request for information — Rights of defence — No absolute right to silence — Right to refuse to provide an answer implying recognition of the existence of an infringement (Art. 101 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 48(2); Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18) (see paras 118-120)

8. Competition — Administrative procedure — Request for information — Rights of defence — Right to refuse to provide an answer implying recognition of the existence of an infringement — Questions of the Commission having such replies as the consequence — Assessment (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18) (see paras 121, 134-136)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2361 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders HeidelbergCement AG to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — 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))

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 marks basic and BASIC

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

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 between the goods or services in question — Complementary nature of the goods or services

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

5. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case

6. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States — Effect

Summary

1. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 21, 22)

2. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 24, 27)

3. For the relevant public composed of professionals, there is a likelihood of confusion, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, between the figurative sign ‘basic’, registration of which is applied for in respect of goods and services under Classes 35 and 39 of the Nice Agreement, and the figurative mark BASIC previously registered in respect of services under Classes 35, 37 and 39, given the similarity of the services in question, the fact that they are phonetically and conceptually identical despite the low degree of visual similarity, and the low distinctive character of the earlier mark.

(see paras 30, 58-60)

4. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 32, 33)

5. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 34)

6. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 35)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Rovi Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Laboratorios Farmacéuticos Rovi (ROVI Pharmaceuticals)

(Case T‑97/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ROVI Pharmaceuticals — Earlier Community figurative mark ROVI and earlier national word mark ROVIFARMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment’

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 32, 100, 101)

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 33, 40)

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 mark ROVI Pharmaceuticals — Figurative mark ROVI and word mark ROVIFARMA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 36, 44, 45, 60-63, 81, 87, 88, 94, 98, 99, 108)

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 — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 64-66, 74)

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 — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 117)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 December 2010 (Case R 500/2010‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Farmacéuticos Rovi, SA and Rovi Pharmaceuticals GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
The types of injury referred to in Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, where they occur, are the consequence of a certain degree of similarity between the earlier and the later marks, by virtue of which the relevant public makes a connection between those two marks, that is to say, establishes a link between them even though it does not confuse them.

The application of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 is subject to three conditions, namely, first, the identity of or similarity between the marks at issue; secondly, the existence of a reputation of the earlier trade mark relied on in support of the opposition; and, thirdly, the risk that use without due cause of the trade mark applied for would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark. Those conditions are cumulative and failure to satisfy one of them is sufficient to render the provision inapplicable.

(see paras 17, 18)
The criterion relating to the selectivity of a measure makes it possible to distinguish between State aid and general measures of tax or economic policy implemented by the Member States. Thus, for the condition of selectivity to be satisfied, a category of undertakings which are exclusively favoured by the measure at issue must be identified in all cases.

In that regard, Article 107(1) TFEU requires assessment as to whether, under a given legal regime, a State measure is such as to favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods in comparison with other undertakings which are in a legal and factual situation that is comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the said regime. Where the measure at issue, even though it constitutes a derogation from the common or ‘normal’ tax regime, is potentially available to all undertakings, it is not possible to compare, in the light of the objective pursued by the common or ‘normal’ regime, the legal and factual situation of undertakings which are able to benefit from the measure with that of undertakings which cannot benefit from it. It follows that, in such a situation, the mere finding that a derogation from the common or normal tax regime has been provided for cannot give rise to selectivity.

Furthermore, it is for the Commission to prove that a measure creates differences between undertakings which, with regard to the objective pursued, are in a comparable factual and legal situation.

(see paras 38, 47-50)
1.

Annuls Council Decision 2011/357/CFSP of 20 June 2011, amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus, Council Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus, Council Decision 2011/666/CFSP of 10 October 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1000/2011 of 10 October 2011 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as those acts concern Mr Vladimir Peftiev;
EU law—Principles—Rights of defence—Audi alteram partem rule—Compliance in the context of judicial proceedings—Scope—Plea raised of the court’s own motion without inviting the parties to submit observations—Infringement

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 113)

(see para. 45)
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;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 May 2012 —

TMS Trademark‑Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft v OHIM —

Comercial Jacinto Parera (MAD)



(Case T‑152/11)

Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community figurative mark MAD — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character — Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009

Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form differing in elements not altering the distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a) and 51(1)(a)) (see para. 77)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2010 (Case R 449/2009-2) concerning cancellation proceedings between TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft mbH and Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;