ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2011 – Vuitton Malletier v OHIM – Friis Group International (Representation of a locking device)

(Case T-237/10)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – No distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 – No distinctive character acquired through use (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(b) and (3), and 52(1)(a) and (2)) (see paras 22, 43, 46, 68, 70, 73, 75, 79, 81-82, 99-101)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2010 (Case R 1590/2008-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Friis Group International Aps and Louis Vuitton Malletier.

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) of 24 February 2010 (Case R 1590/2008-1) in so far as it declared Community trade mark number 3 693 116 invalid for ‘Jewellery, including rings, keyrings, buckles and earrings, cuff links, bracelets, trinkets, brooches, necklaces, ties pins, ornaments, medallions; horological and chronometric instruments and apparatus, including watches, watchcases, alarm clocks; nutcrackers in precious metals, their alloys or coated therewith, candlesticks in precious metals, their alloys or coated therewith’ in Class 14 and ‘leather and imitations of leather’ and ‘umbrellas’ in Class 18;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — You-Q v OHIM – Apple Corps (BEATLE)

(Case T-369/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BEATLE — Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks BEATLES and THE BEATLES — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier marks

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 — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 34-35, 45, 60, 74)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 May 2010 (Case R 1276/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Apple Corps Ltd and Movingpeople.net International BV.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2012 — Colas v OHIM – García-Teresa Gárate and Bouffard Vicente (BASE‑SEAL)

(Case T-172/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark BASE-SEAL — Earlier national figurative marks representing a diamond shape — Earlier national and international figurative marks COLAS — Relative ground for refusal — 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 39-42, 59-63)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2010 (Case R 450/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Colas and, on the other hand, Ms Rosario García-Teresa Gárate and Ms Carmen Bouffard Vicente.

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 4 February 2010 (Case R 450/2009-4) in respect of goods other than the chemicals used in science, photography, agriculture, horticulture and forestry; manures; and chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs referred to in that decision;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2012 —

Wohlfahrt v OHIM — Ferrero (Kindertraum)



(Case T‑580/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Kindertraum — Earlier national word mark Kinder — Relative ground for refusal — Proof of use of the earlier trade mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 41, 47-54)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2010 (Case R 815/2009‑4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero SpA and Mr Harald Wohlfahrt.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 June 2012 —

Spain v Commission



(Cases T-178/10, T-263/10 and T-265/10)

Operational programmes of the Cohesion Fund and of the ERDF managed by Spain — Request for interim payment — Evidence suggesting significant deficiency in functioning of management and control systems — Measures interrupting the period for payment — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Audit strategy — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Decision to interrupt the period for settlement of an interim payment application — Measure constituting the final conclusion of a distinct special procedure — Included (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1083/2006) (see paras 8-11, 18)

2. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — EU financing — Obligation on Member States to establish monitoring and control systems — Evidence suggesting significant deficiency in the functioning of management and control systems — Report of a national or Community audit body containing that evidence — Existence — Measures interrupting the period for payment (Art. 317 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 91(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 1828/2006) (see paras 31-33)

3. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — EU financing — Obligation on Member States to establish monitoring and control systems — Audit of monitoring and control systems — Approval of audit strategies — Implementation of audit work made conditional on approval of audit strategies — Excluded (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 62(1)(a),(b), and (c)) (see paras 72-74)

4. Acts of the institutions — Choice of legal basis — Legislation forming part of EU law — Requirements of clarity and foreseeability — Express indication of the legal basis — Included (see paras 86-88)

5. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Specific assurances given by the authorities — Absence (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 62(1)(c), and (2)) (see paras 92, 94)

6. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — EU financing — Obligation on Member States to establish monitoring and control systems — Evidence suggesting significant deficiency in the functioning of management and control systems — Measures interrupting the period for payment — Interim measures — Breach of principle of proportionality — None (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Arts 72(2), and 91(1)) (see paras 99-100, 103, 106)

Re:

ACTIONS against the Commission decisions of 12 February 2010 (Case T-178/10), 8 April 2010 (Case T-263/10) and 15 April 2010 (Case T-265/10) informing the Spanish authorities of the interruption of the period for the settlement of certain requests for interim payment submitted by the Kingdom of Spain.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders that Cases T-178/10, T-263/10 and T-265/10 be joined for the purposes of judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 22-23, 25-26, 34

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2011 (Case R 1711/2010‑1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Infront as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2 . Orders Häfele GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
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

—

Figurative marks SEVEN SUMMITS and Seven (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 55-57, 62, 63, 71

)
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 17-18, 42-47

)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community 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 — Account taken by the General Court of matters of law and fact which have not been raised previously before the departments of OHIM — Exclusion

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties — Obligation on the parties to state facts and evidence in support — Rules of national law — Included

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76)

Summary

1. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 25)

2. Determining and interpreting rules of national law, in so far as so doing is essential to the activity of EU institutions, is a matter of establishing the facts, not applying the law. Indeed, the only law which is applied is EU law. Therefore, while it is true that Article 65(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark must be construed as meaning that rules of law whose infringement may give rise to an action before the General Court may be the province of national or EU law, it is, however, only EU law which falls within the area of law, in which the maxim iura novit curia applies, whereas national law is an issue of fact, where facts must be adduced and the requirements of the burden of proof apply, and the content of national law must be demonstrated where necessary by the production of evidence. It follows that, as a rule, in the context of a procedure before the EU institutions, it is for the party relying on national law to show that it supports his claims.

Admittedly, the General Court has qualified that principle, holding that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) must, of its own motion and by whatever means considered appropriate, obtain information about the national law of the Member State concerned, where such information is necessary to assess the applicability of the ground for refusal of registration in question and, in particular, the correctness of the facts pleaded or the probative value of the documents lodged. However, it is only where OHIM already has information relating to national law, either in the form of claims as to its meaning, or in the form of evidence submitted and whose probative value has been adduced, that it is required, if necessary, to obtain of its own motion information about national law.

(see paras 35, 38, 39, 41)
Within the framework of a consultation process made mandatory by Article 3 of Decision 98/552 on the implementation by the Commission of activities relating to the Community market access strategy, the establishment of working groups to examine specific issues, the admission of third parties as experts and the taking of minutes or drafting of reports of the meetings of the advisory committee and the working groups on market access indicate that it is necessary for the Commission to prepare and send documents to the members of that committee as well as to the trade associations and companies that were acting as experts, thereby permitting the inference that the documents were internal documents within the terms of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

Where the recipients of the documents requested by the applicant are Member States, trade associations and companies participating, as experts in the case of the latter two categories, in the work of the advisory committee and its working groups on access to the markets of a third State, and within the framework of meetings that were not open to the public, participation in this process of assistance to the Commission constitutes a predetermined differentiating criterion, the satisfaction of which determines a person’s status as a recipient of the documents at issue. Documents sent are sent not by way of general information, but within the framework of a limited technical exchange and with the sole purpose of enabling all of the participants to fulfil their roles as advisers to the Commission. The Commission’s dissemination of such documents cannot be regarded as having been intended to, and liable to, make those documents known to the public, that is to say, to an indeterminate group of persons, considered in general and in the abstract. Nor can the group of putative recipients of the documents requested, namely the members of the trade associations participating in the work of the advisory committee and of the working groups on market access, be treated as synonymous with the ‘public’. Those members also represent a specific group of persons defined according to a predetermined criterion, in this case membership of a trade association whose expertise is required in connection with the provision of assistance to the Commission for the purpose of deciding upon a strategy for access to the markets of a third State.

Moreover, the wording on making documents ‘directly’ accessible or concerning their ‘easily accessible’ nature, used by Articles 10 and 12(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001 which is characteristic of situations in which the right of access by the ‘public’ is undertaken actively by the institutions, does not cover a selective approach adopted by the Commission in relation to the communication of the documents.

(see paras 31-33, 35-37, 39, 40, 42-44)
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 — Figurative marks SEVEN SUMMITS and Seven (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 55-57, 62, 63, 71 ) Subject of the case Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2011 (Case R 364/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Seven SpA and Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH. Operative part Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH to pay its own costs and to bear those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Seven SpA.

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2012 — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Seven (SEVEN SUMMITS)

(Case T-179/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark SEVEN SUMMITS — Earlier Community figurative mark Seven — 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 — Figurative marks SEVEN SUMMITS and Seven (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 55-57, 62, 63, 71)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2011 (Case R 364/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Seven SpA and Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 September 2012 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC PAIEMENT)

(Case T-497/11)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark EURO AUTOMATIC PAIEMENT — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive nature — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) 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 capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16-18, 33, 74)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 EURO AUTOMATIC PAIEMENT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 25-76)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 July 2011 (Case No R 370/2011-2), concerning an application to register the word mark EURO AUTOMATIC PAIEMENT as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Euro-Information — Européenne de traitement de l’information to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 September 2012 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC PAIEMENT)

(Case T-497/11)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark EURO AUTOMATIC PAIEMENT — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive nature — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) 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 capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16-18, 33, 74)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 EURO AUTOMATIC PAIEMENT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 25-76)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 July 2011 (Case No R 370/2011-2), concerning an application to register the word mark EURO AUTOMATIC PAIEMENT as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
2.

Community 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 — Account taken by the General Court of matters of law and fact not previously raised before the departments of OHIM — Excluded (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2)) (see para. 16)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 13-15)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word marks Premium XL and Premium L (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17-22)

3. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 31)

Subject of the case

Re:

Two actions brought against two decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2011 (Case R 245/2011-1 and Case R 246/2011-1 respectively), concerning applications for registration as Community trade marks of the word sign Premium XL and the word sign Premium L respectively.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-582/11 and T-583/11 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;

3. Orders Solar-Fabrik AG für Produktion und Vertrieb von solartechnischen Produkten to pay the costs.