ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 November 2011 – Monster Cable Products v OHIM – Live Nation (Music) UK (MONSTER ROCK)

(Case T-216/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark MONSTER ROCK – Earlier national mark MONSTERS OF ROCK – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the goods – 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, 53-54)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2010 (Case R 216/2009-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Live Nation (Music) UK Ltd and Monster Cable Products, Inc.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 November 2011 – Esprit International v OHIM – Marc O'Polo International (Representation of a letter on a pocket)

(Case T-22/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark consisting of the representation of a letter on a pocket – Earlier national figurative mark representing a letter – 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 106-108)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2009 (Case R 1666/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Marc O’Polo International GmbH and Esprit International LP.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2012 – Hamberger Industriewerke v OHIM (Atrium)

(Case T-513/10)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark Atrium – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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 15-20)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 August 2010 (Case R 291/2010-4), concerning an application for registration of the word mark Atrium as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 February 2012 — Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio v OHIM —

Weinkellerei Lenz Moser (SERVO SUO)



(Case T‑525/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SERVO SUO — Earlier Community word mark SERVUS — Relative grounds 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 22, 60, 65)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 August 2010 (Case R 1571/2009‑2) relating to opposition proceedings between Weinkellerei Lenz Moser AG and Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — Grupo Osborne v OHIM — Industria Licorera Quezalteca (TORO XL)

(Case T‑169/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark TORO XL — Early Community figurative mark XL — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — No likelihood of confusion

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 20, 56‑58)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2010 (Case R 223/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Industria Licorera Quezalteca, SA and Grupo Osborne, SA.

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 22 January 2010 (Case R 223/2009‑2);
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 May 2012 —

Conceria Kara v OHIM — Dima (KARRA)



(Case T‑270/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark KARRA — Earlier national and Community figurative marks Kara — Company name Conceria Kara Srl and trade name Kara — Relative grounds for refusal — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8 of the Paris Convention — Bad faith

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 67, 68)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 73‑75)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2010 (Case R 1172/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Conceria Kara Srl and Dima — Gida Tekstil Deri Insaat Maden Turizm Orman Urünleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret Ltd Sti.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2012 — IDT Biologika v Commission

(Case T-503/10)

Public supply contracts — Call for tenders — Supply in Serbia of rabies vaccines — Rejection of a submitted tender — Award of the contract to another tenderer

1. EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (Council Regulation No 1605/2002; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002) (see paras 19, 20)

2. EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Duty to comply with the principles of equal treatment of tenderers and transparency (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 89(1) and 168) (see para. 51)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision dated 10 August 2010 of the European Union delegation in the Republic of Serbia (OJ 2010/S 192-293332) awarding the contract in the call for tenders EuropeAid/129809/C/SUP/RS for the supply of rabies vaccines for vaccination campaigns in Serbia to the consortium directed by the company Bioveta a.s. and rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Where a proprietor has conferred the monitoring of its Community trade mark on a professional representative and has duly notified the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to that effect, OHIM is also required to respect that choice by sending its official service notifications to that appointed representative in order to put that appointed representative in a position to defend the interests of its principal with the higher standard of due care which it is supposed to display as a qualified professional. In that respect, OHIM cannot rely on Article 47(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Rule 29 of Regulation No 2868/95, implementing Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, by claiming that those provisions require it to inform the proprietor of a Community trade mark, but not its professional appointed representative, of the imminent expiry of the registration of that trade mark. That argument is at variance with Rule 67 of Regulation No 2868/95, under which, if a representative has been appointed, all notifications must be addressed to him.

It is apparent from Article 81(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, that restitutio in integrum is subject to two requirements, the first being that the party has exercised all due care required by the circumstances, and the second being that the non-observance by the party has the direct consequence of causing the loss of any right or means of redress.

It is also apparent from that provision that the requirement to exercise due care lies in the first instance with the proprietor of the trade mark. Thus, if the proprietor delegates administrative tasks relating to renewal of a mark, it must ensure that the person chosen offers the assurance necessary to enable it to be assumed that those tasks will be carried out properly. Since those tasks have been delegated, the person chosen is subject to the requirement to exercise due care just as much as the proprietor. Since that person acts on behalf of and in the name of the proprietor, its actions must be regarded as being the proprietor’s actions.

The words ‘all due care required by the circumstances’ in Article 81(1) of that regulation require, in the case of an appeal to a specialised representative, the setting-up of a system of internal control and monitoring of time‑limits that generally excludes the involuntary non-observance of time-limits, as laid down in the guidelines relating to proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). It follows that restitutio in integrum may be granted only in the case of exceptional events, which cannot therefore be predicted from experience.

(see para. 36-38, 41)
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 23, 24, 43‑51, 54 ) Subject of the case Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2010 (Case R 182/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Merck sp. z o.o. and Asa sp. z o.o. Operative part Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Asa sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2012 — Asa v OHIM — Merck (FEMIFERAL)

(Case T-110/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark FEMIFERAL — Earlier national word mark Feminatal and earlier national figurative mark feminatal — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — 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 23, 24, 43-51, 54)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2010 (Case R 182/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Merck sp. z o.o. and Asa sp. z o.o.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 2012 — Monier Roofing Components v OHIM (CLIMA COMFORT)

(Case T-371/11)

‛Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark CLIMA COMFORT — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Ex officio examination of the facts — Article 76(1) 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 — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 13, 18, 19, 36)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark CLIMA COMFORT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 14, 25-29, 32-43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2011 (Case R 2026/2010-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign CLIMA COMFORT as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 character of the products (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39, 40, 48)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 November 2012 — Phonebook of the World v OHIM — Seat Pagine Gialle (PAGINE GIALLE)

(Case T-589/11)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark PAGINE GIALLE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Lack of descriptive character — No signs or indications which have become customary — Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which have become usual in current parlance or in fair and consistent trading customs — Commonplace character — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(d)) (see para. 29)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks which are devoid of distinctive character, descriptive or commonplace — Word mark PAGINE GIALLE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) to (d)) (see paras 31, 34-46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 August 2011 (Case R 1541/2010-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Phonebook of the World and Seat Pagine Gialle SpA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Phonebook of the World to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 November 2012 — Phonebook of the World v OHIM — Seat Pagine Gialle (PAGINE GIALLE)

(Case T-589/11)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark PAGINE GIALLE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Lack of descriptive character — No signs or indications which have become customary — Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which have become usual in current parlance or in fair and consistent trading customs — Commonplace character — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(d)) (see para. 29)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks which are devoid of distinctive character, descriptive or commonplace — Word mark PAGINE GIALLE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) to (d)) (see paras 31, 34-46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 August 2011 (Case R 1541/2010-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Phonebook of the World and Seat Pagine Gialle SpA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid — Concept — Assessment according to the criterion of the private investor — Granting, by a public bank, of a credit guaranteed by the State — Account taken of impossibility of the beneficiary undertaking obtaining the same credit from other financial institutions without the guarantee by the State — No manifest error of assessment by the Commission (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 17-20, 28-55)

2. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 21)

3. State aid — Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — Account taken of the context and all the legal rules — No obligation to reply to all the arguments put forward during the administrative procedure (Arts 107(1) TFEU and 296 TFEU; Commission Notice 2004/C 244/02) (see paras 27, 101-105, 117)

4. State aid — Concept — Aid granted to a public undertaking — Undertaking controlled by the State — Imputability to the State of the aid measure — Exclusion — Whole of the evidence to be taken into consideration (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 59-67)

5. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Decision to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Decision capable of diverging from the final decision (Art. 108(2) TFEU) (see paras 76, 77, 97)

6. State aid — Effect on trade between Member States — Adverse effect on competition — Criteria for assessment (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 89-93)

7. State aid — Administrative procedure — Right of the persons concerned to be heard — Limits (Art. 108(2) TFEU) (see para. 118)

8. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Decision of the Commission to open a formal procedure for investigating a State aid measure — Provisional assessment of the latter — No legitimate expectations (see para. 121)

9. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market — Aid to remedy serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State — Assessment — Taking into account previous practice — Exclusion (Art. 107(3)(b) TFEU) (see para. 126)

10. Judicial proceedings — Measures of organisation of procedure — Request for production of documents — Obligations of the claimant (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 64(3)(d) and (4)) (see para. 130)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/269/EU of 27 October 2010 on State aid C 14/09 (ex NN 17/09) granted by Hungary to Péti Nitrogénművek Zrt. (OJ 2011 L 118, p. 9).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nitrogénművek Vegyipari Zrt. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 15-18)

2. 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 — Concept — Neologism consisting of elements descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services concerned — Whether included where the nature of the combination is not unusual (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 22)

3. Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Registration of a trade mark refused or trade mark declared invalid — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Concept — Neologism consisting of elements descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services concerned — Whether included where the nature of the combination is not unusual (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(1)(c)) (see para. 23)

4. 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 — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark STEAM GLIDE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 25-41, 47-50)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the various grounds for refusal — Interpretation of the grounds for refusal in the light of the public interest underlying each of them (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see para. 45)

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 para. 49)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2011 (Case R 1289/2010-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV and Spectrum Brands (UK) Ltd.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Spectrum Brands (UK) Ltd to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV.