ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 22)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted by a colour or a combination of colours (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23-26)

3. 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 para. 27)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark representing white dots on a grey background (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art.7(1)(b)) (see paras 56, 57)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Examination of the grounds for refusal having regard to each of the products or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 59)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2013 (Case R 704/2013-1) relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing white dots on a grey background.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders EE Ltd to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal to a Board of Appeal — Competence of the Boards of Appeal — Board re-examining of its own motion genuine use of the earlier mark in relation to goods not referred to by the parties — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 24)

2. Community 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 40)

3. Community 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 — Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning — Admissibility (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 50(2)(h)) (see paras 48, 61)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Correction of an error of reasoning during the proceedings before the Court — Not permissible (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 62)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 March 2014 (Case R 609/2011-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Bernhard Rintisch and Compagnie laitière européenne SA.

Operative part

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 14 March 2014 (Case R 609/2011-4);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Bernhard Rintisch;

3. Orders Compagnie laitière européenne SA to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 October 2015 —

Roca Sanitario v OHIM — Villeroy & Boch (Single control handle faucet)

(Case T‑334/14)

‛Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a single control handle faucet — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — No scope for innovation — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002’

1. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Overall assessment of all the elements presented by the earlier design (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 17, 58)

2. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Informed user — Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 23-26)

3. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Criteria for assessment — Creative licence (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(2), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 36)

4. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Saturation of the state of the art — Relevance (see para. 83)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 February 2014 (Case R 812/2012-3), concerning invalidity proceedings between Villeroy & Boch AG and Roca Sanitario, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — 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 14, 15)

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 — Figurative mark BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16-18, 24)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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) (see para. 19)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 22)

5. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Misuse of powers — Concept (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 26)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2014 (Case R 527/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 October 2015 —

Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks v Commission

(Case T‑49/14)

‛Protected geographical indication — ‘Kołocz śląski’ or ‘Kołacz śląski’ — Cancellation proceedings — Legal base — Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Grounds for cancellation — Fundamental rights’

1. Acts of the institutions — Temporal application — Procedural rules — Substantive rules — Distinction (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1151/2012, Art. 54; Council Regulation No 510/2006, Art. 12) (see paras 26-29)

2. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Limits — Application of new rules to the future effects of situations arising during the period of application of previous rules — Infringement — None (see para. 31)

3. Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Regulation No 1151/2012 — Procedure for annulling a registration — Grounds for cancellation — Possibility of relying on grounds falling exclusively within the opposition proceedings — Exclusion (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1151/2012, Arts 10, 51 and 54) (see paras 62-64, 67, 81, 82)

4. Acts of the institutions — Validity — Fundamental rights being undermined — Assessment by reference to EU law alone (see para. 87)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of the Commission Implementing Decision of 14 November 2013 concerning the rejection of a request to cancel a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Kołocz śląski/kołacz śląski (PGI)) (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 40).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 October 2015 —

Vimeo v OHIM — PT Comunicações (VIMEO)

(Case T‑96/14)

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

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 19-21, 26)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 28)

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 — Criteria for assessment — Coexistence of two marks on a given market (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 45, 50, 51)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark VIMEO and figurative mark meo (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 67-70)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 November 2013 (Case R 1092/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between PT Comunicações, SA and Vimeo LLC.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Assessment of the distinctiveness of an element composing a trade mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 38)
1.

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 other documents — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76) (see para. 14)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2015 —

Giand v OHIM — Flamagas (FLAMINAIRE)

(Case T‑583/14)

‛Community mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark FLAMINAIRE — Earlier national and international word marks FLAMINAIRE — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Ne bis in idem’

1. Community trade mark — Proceedings before the OHIM authorities — Relation between a decision on an opposition and an opposition formed subsequently in a different procedure — Res judicata — Not applicable (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 21)

2. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Interpretation having regard to the rationale of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 23-28)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42-45)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 54, 56, 58)

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 — Word mark FLAMINAIRE and word marks FLAMINAIRE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(a) and (b)) (see paras 56, 58, 64, 68, 69)

6. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Confirmatory judgments — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2) and (3)) (see para. 71)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2014 (Case R 2117/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Flamagas, SA and Giand Srl.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2015 —

Hong Kong Group v OHIM — WE Brand (W E)

(Case T‑718/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark W E — Earlier Community word mark WE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Direction issued to the Office — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 16)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Amendment of a decision by the Office — Assessment having regard to the competences conferred on the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 17)

3. Community 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 20)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26)

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 32, 33)

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 — Criteria for assessment — Earlier mark holding an independent distinctive position in the market applied for (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 35)

7. Community 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, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 65)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 August 2014 (Case R 2305/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between WE Brand Sàrl and Hong Kong Group Oy.

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 4 August 2014 (Case R 2305/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between WE Brand Sàrl and Hong Kong Group Oy and the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 30 September 2013;

2. Dismisses the opposition;
In the case of an application for annulment of acts of the Council entering the name of the applicant on a list of persons covered by restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Ukraine, the fact that those acts are no longer in force at the time the Court decision is given, since they have been amended as regards the applicant, cannot be equated with annulment by the Court of acts adopted initially, in so far as that amendment does not amount to recognition of the illegality of those acts. The applicant thus retains an interest in bringing an action, arising from the fact that recognition of the illegality of the contested acts may provide a foundation for a subsequent action for compensation in respect of the damage suffered because of those acts during the period of their application.

In an annulment action, an applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings must continue until the final decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate, which presupposes that the action must be liable, if successful, to procure an advantage for the party bringing it.

Although the Council has a broad discretion as regards the general criteria to be taken into consideration for the purpose of adopting restrictive measures, the effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires that, as part of the review of the lawfulness of the grounds which are the basis of the decision to include or to maintain a person’s name on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures, the Courts of the European Union are to ensure that that decision, which affects that person individually, is taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis. That entails a verification of the factual allegations in the summary of reasons underpinning that decision, with the consequence that judicial review cannot be restricted to an assessment of the cogency in the abstract of the reasons relied on, but must concern whether those reasons, or, at the very least, one of those reasons, deemed sufficient in itself to support that decision, are substantiated by sufficiently specific and concrete evidence.

In that regard, in order to enter the name of a person on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures, on the ground that that person has been identified as being responsible for the misappropriation of State funds, the Council must have a sufficiently solid factual basis, namely information regarding the acts or conduct specifically imputed to that person.

Moreover, it is for the competent European Union authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied on against the person concerned are well-founded, and not the task of that person to adduce evidence of the negative, that those reasons are not well-founded.

(see paras 43, 54, 56)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 December 2015 —

Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v OHIM — Marpefa (Vieta)

(Case T‑690/14)

‛Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community figurative mark Vieta — Genuine use of the mark — Nature of use — Article 15(1) and Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark — Proof of use for the registered goods’

1. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the trade mark in a form differing in elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Subject-matter and scope of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), second para., (a), and 51(1)(a)) (see para. 31)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the trade mark in a form differing in elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), second para., (a), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 32, 44, 45, 49, 53)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), and 51(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 22(3), and 40(5)) (see paras 33, 34)

4. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the trade mark in a form differing in elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Figurative mark Vieta (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 51(1)(a), and (2)) (see paras 54, 69)

5. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Partial use — Effect — Concept of ‘part of goods or services’ concerned by registration (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a) and 51(2)) (see paras 61, 62)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 July 2014 (Case R 2100/2013-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited and Marpefa, SL.

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 2 July 2014 (Case R 2100/2013-2) in so far as it dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division to reject the application for the revocation of the Community figurative mark Vieta for ‘apparatus for the reproduction of sound and images’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;