ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 March 2016 —

LG Developpement v OHIM — Bayerische Motoren Werke (MINICARGO)

(Case T‑160/15)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark MINICARGO — Earlier Community word mark MINI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 53)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 16)

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 MINICARGO and word mark MINI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 26, 37, 46, 52, 58)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27-29, 36)

6. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — High distinctiveness of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 56)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2015 (Case R 596/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and LG Developpement.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
6.

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Overlap between the scope of the grounds for refusal set out in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 34, 35)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 May 2016 —

U-R LAB v EUIPO (THE DINING EXPERIENCE)

(Cases T‑422/15 and T‑423/15)

‛European Union trade mark — Application for European Union figurative and word marks THE DINING EXPERIENCE — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the goods or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), and 75, first sentence)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark composed of several elements — Account taken of the overall perception of the combination by the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b))

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Not permissible (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b))

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b))

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark THE DINING EXPERIENCE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b))

7. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice (Council Regulation No 207/2009)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2015 (Cases R 2541/2014-4 and R 2542/2014-4) concerning applications for registration of, first, the figurative sign and, secondly, the word sign THE DINING EXPERIENCE as European Union trade marks.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T‑422/15 and T‑423/15 for the purposes of the present judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;
4.

EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Not included (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 33)
EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision—Limits

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 64(1), and 65(2) and (3))

(see paras 17, 74)
It follows from Rule 15(2)(f) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, in most of the versions other than the French-language version, that the notice of opposition must contain the goods and services on which the opposition is based. In those circumstances, given the general scheme of the rules governing the opposition procedure and the purpose of the rules determining the content of the notice of opposition, the lack of reference to the goods and services on which the opposition is based, in the French-language version of that rule, an omission which is clearly a typographical error, does not allow that provision to be interpreted as not requiring an indication, in the notice of opposition, of those goods and services.

In order to comply with the requirements of clarity and precision enabling the competent authorities and economic operators to determine the extent of the protection sought, an applicant for a trade mark which uses all of the general indications of a particular class heading of the Nice Classification to identify the goods or services for which protection of the trade mark is sought must specify whether its application for registration is intended to cover all the goods or services included in the alphabetical list of the particular class concerned or only some of those goods or services. If the application relates to only some of those goods or services, the applicant will be required to specify which of the goods or services in that class are intended to be covered.

Such requirements of clarity and precision must be regarded as binding also upon the opposing party, in relation to the designation of the goods and services on which the opposition is based, for the purposes of allowing EUIPO to decide on the opposition and the applicant for the mark that is the subject of the opposition to put forward its arguments in defence.

Thus, in particular, where the opposing party indicates that it is basing its opposition on a portion of the goods and services covered by the mark of which it is the proprietor, it must indicate clearly and precisely the goods and services on which its opposition is based. In such circumstances, the Board of Appeal cannot be required to take into consideration, for the purposes of its examination of the opposition, goods and services that were not mentioned in the notice of opposition.

(see paras 29, 30, 32)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 November 2016 –

Vince v EUIPO (ELECTRIC HIGHWAY)

(Case T‑315/15)

(EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark ELECTRIC HIGHWAY — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 21)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign—Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 20)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Word mark ELECTRIC HIGHWAY (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 22-27)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2015 (Case R 1442/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ELECTRIC HIGHWAY as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2016 —

salesforce.com v EUIPO (SOCIAL.COM)

(Case T‑134/15)

‛European Union trade mark — Application for European Union word mark SOCIAL.COM — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 12)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 13-15)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word mark SOCIAL.COM (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 17, 20, 23, 24, 30, 33)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the goods or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), and 75, first sentence) (see paras 27, 32)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2015 (Case R 1752/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the word mark SOCIAL.COM as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) of 23 November 2016 —

Alsteens v Commission

(Case T‑328/15 P)

(Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary staff — Renewal of contract — Restriction of the duration of the contract renewal — Rights of the defence)

1. Actions brought by officials—Prior administrative complaint—Subject-matter—Correspondence between the complaint and the application—Considered of Court’s own motion (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 32)

2. EU law—Principles—Rights of defence—Audi alteram partem rule—Compliance in the context of judicial proceedings—Scope (see paras 34-41)

3. Judicial proceedings—Production of evidence—Time-limit—Evidence lodged out of time—Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 42) (see paras 75, 76)

4. Actions brought by officials—Acts adversely affecting an official—Concept—Act directly and immediately affecting the interests of the applicant (Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2), and 91(1)) (see paras 113, 115)

Re:

APPEAL lodged against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 April 2015, Alsteens v Commission (F‑87/12 RENV, EU:F:2015:31), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 April 2015, Alsteens v Commission (F‑87/12 RENV, EU:F:2015:31) insofar as the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed the first and third pleas in law seeking annulment raised at first instance and the claim for damages;

2. Dismisses the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission before the Civil Service Tribunal;

3. Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 18 November 2011, insofar as it restricts the duration of the extension of Mr Geoffroy Alsteens’ temporary contract to 31 March 2012;

4. Refers the action back to a Chamber of the General Court other than that which has ruled in the present appeal for a ruling on the claims for damages put forward by Mr Alsteens;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 —

Monster Energy v EUIPO — Mad Catz Interactive (MAD CATZ)

(Case T‑429/15)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MAD CATZ — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 17)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 MAD CATZ (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19, 43, 46)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 — Link between the marks (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b), and (5)) (see para. 45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2015 (Case R 2176/2014-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Mad Catz Interactive.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 September 2016 — Lacamanda Group v EUIPO — Woolley (HENLEY)

(Case T‑362/15)

‛EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark HENLEY — Earlier United Kingdom and EU word marks HENLEYS — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 — Reputation of the mark in the Member State or the EU — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 19-22)

2. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2)) (see para. 25)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2015 (Case R 2255/2012-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between The Lacamanda Group and Nigel Woolley.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 April 2015 (Case R 2255/2012-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of The Lacamanda Group Ltd;
Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) of 27 October 2016 —

Commission v CX(Case T‑493/15 P)

‛Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary sanction — Removal from post — Right to be heard — Article 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Errors of law — Distortion of the evidence — Incomplete examination of the facts and evidence’

1. Appeal — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — General Court’s review of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 257, third para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11) (see para. 40)

2. Appeal — Grounds — Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Material inaccuracy of findings arising from documents on the file — Admissibility — Incomplete examination of the facts — Admissibility (Art. 225 EC) (see para. 41)

3. Appeal — Grounds — Review by the General Court of the assessment by the Civil Service Tribunal that additional information necessary — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1)) (see para. 52)

4. Officials — Sick leave — Medical examination — Arbitration procedure for the purposes of Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations — Purpose (Staff Regulations, Art. 59(1)) (see paras 72-74)

Re:

APPEAL brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2015, CX v Commission (F‑5/14, EU:F:2015:61), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2015, CX v Commission (F‑5/14, EU:F:2015:61);

2. Refers the case back to a Chamber of the General Court of the European Union other than the Chamber which has ruled on the present appeal;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 September 2016 — Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto v EUIPO — University College London (CITRUS SATURDAY)

(Case T‑400/15)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CITRUS SATURDAY — Earlier national word mark CITRUS — Late submission of documents — Discretion conferred by Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 19 and Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95’

1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Form of appeal and period within which it must be brought — Pleading setting out the grounds lodged within the period prescribed — Condition for admissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 72(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 19(1), 20(1), 70(2), 72, 80(2), and 98) (see paras 22-25)

2. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 19(2)(a)(ii), and (3)) (see paras 28-31, 36)

3. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d)) (see paras 42, 43)

4. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Boards of Appeal — Classification as administration of the Office — Right of the parties to a fair ‘process’ — None (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 61 to 64) (see para. 47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2015 (Case R 2109/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Ms Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto and University College London.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — Łabowicz v EUIPO — Pure Fishing (NANO)

(Case T‑237/15)

‛EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark NANO — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 28-30)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Figurative mark NANO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 31, 47, 50, 51)

3. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of non-discrimination — Irrelevant (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 36)

4. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Boards of Appeal — Classification as administration of the Office — Right of the parties to a fair ‘process’ — None (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 66)

5. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 67, 68)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2015 (Case R 2426/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Pure Fishing and Mr Łabowicz.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;