ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2011 – Ergo Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM – Société de développement et de recherche industrielle (ERGO Group)

(Case T-221/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark ERGO Group – Earlier Community word mark URGO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now 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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-21, 58-59)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 520/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Société de développement et de recherche industrielle and Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 October 2011 – COR Sitzmöbel Helmut Lübke v OHIM – El Corte Inglés (COR)

(Case T-214/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for territorial extension of the protection of an international registration – Word mark COR – Earlier Community word mark CADENACOR – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Similarity of the signs – Similarity of the goods

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, 37, 66, 70-72)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 March 2009 (Case R 376/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA, and COR Sitzmöbel Helmut Lübke GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 September 2011 – Cesea Group v OHIM – Mangini & C. (Mangiami)

(Case T-250/09)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community figurative mark Mangiami – Earlier international word mark MANGINI – Admissibility of new evidence – Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Examination of the application – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Time-limit set by the Office – Submission of additional evidence after expiry of the time-limit where there are new factors – Lawfulness (Council Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 22(2), and 40(6)) (see paras 22, 24-27)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 April 2009 (Case R 982/2008‑2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Mangini & C. Srl and Cesea Group Srl.

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 20 April 2009 (Case R 982/2008‑2);
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 January 2012 – Storck v OHIM – RAI (Ragolizia)

(Case T-462/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark Ragolizia – Earlier Community word mark FAVOLIZIA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2009 (Case R 1779/2008‑4) concerning opposition proceedings between Radiotelevisione italiana SpA (RAI) and August Storck KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 November 2011 – Sniace v Commission

(Case T-238/09)

State aid – Agreements relating to debt rescheduling – Decision declaring an aid to be incompatible with the common market – Duty to state reasons

1. Procedure – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions – New plea – Concept (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2)) (see paras 31-35, 87)

2. State aid – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – Duty to state reasons – Scope – Assessment of the private creditor criterion (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 37-38, 54, 67)

3. State aid – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – Duty to state reasons – Scope – Characterisation of adverse effect on competition and the effects on trade between Member States (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 76-77, 81)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/612/EC of 10 March 2009 relating to measure C 5/2000 (ex NN 118/1997) implemented by Spain in favour of Sniace, SA, Torrelavega, Cantabria, and amending Decision 1999/395/EC (OJ 2009 L 210, p. 4).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
189

However, it must be observed that those documents are not capable of supporting the applicant’s argument. In fact, although it may well follow from them that E.ON, in essence, indicated that, under certain conditions, it was possible to have outlet rights on the MEGAL gas pipeline, it remains the case that it is clear from subsequent documents, and in particular from an email of 21 July 2004, that the applicant considered that, on that date, its ability to take gas from that gas pipeline was limited to the quantities purchased under the GRP and that, apart from those quantities, it had no outlet points on that gas pipeline. It follows, in fact, from that email that the applicant considered that sales were possible from any outlet point on that gas pipeline up to the quantities of gas obtained under the GRP. Above that limit, it considered that the additional sales were no longer linked to the quantities of gas obtained under the GRP and that, for those quantities, the only inlet points that could be used were those of [confidential]. It was stated that the other outlet points were excluded pending a global agreement. This email confirms, moreover, the position set out in several documents dating from the first half of 2004, hence post-dating the document of 19 December 2002. Thus it follows from handwritten notes made at a meeting of 28 January 2004 that the outlet points on the MEGAL gas pipeline were designated solely for E.ON since the applicant did transit only and it would be asked to invest in order to be able to take gas. It also follows from a note by the applicant of 10 May 2004 that, as regards the inlet and outlet points on the MEGAL gas pipeline, on that date it had only the right to take ‘gas obtained at auction’, namely gas purchased under the GRP, at any inlet or outlet point on that gas pipeline. It is also stated explicitly in that note that the transport of gas [confidential] to end-customers in Germany via an outlet point on the MEGAL gas pipeline was not feasible on that date, because the applicant had no such outlet points on the gas pipeline to the west. Similarly, it is stated in the minutes of a ‘Tour d’horizon’ meeting of 27 May 2004 that the applicant’s representative indicated that he was not aware of the file but that he had heard that the applicant wished to supply gas in the south of Germany from the MEGAL gas pipeline, which would not have been the case if it already enjoyed outlet rights. Finally, as regards in particular the document of 19 December 2002, it is clear from a full reading of this document that it mentions possible developments in the applicant’s rights under the future contractual framework for the MEGAL gas pipeline. It cannot, however, be inferred from this that the applicant considered that it definitely had outlet rights on that gas pipeline, or a fortiori that it regarded the side letters as obsolete.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2012 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-491/09)

EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Premiums in the ovine and caprine meat sector — On-the-spot inspections

1. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Grant of aids and premiums — Obligation of Member States to organise an effective system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks — Unreliable controls — Disallowance by the Fund (Council Regulation No 3508/92; Commission Regulation No 2419/2001) (see paras 19, 20, 72-75)

2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof — Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (Council Regulations No 1258/1999 and No 1290/2005) (see paras 21-25, 89)

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF — Obligation complied with simply by the fact of the close association of the addressee Member State with the decision-making process (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 26)

4. Acts of the institutions — Regulations — Regulation prescribing specific control measures — No Member State discretion — Non-implementation — Justification — Other control system more efficient — Not permissible (see paras 37, 51)

5. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Grant of aids and premiums — Obligation of Member States to organise an effective system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks — Implied obligation — Scope (Commission Regulation No 2419/2001, Art. 25(2)(c); Council Directive 92/102, Art. 4(1)(b)) (see para. 80)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2009/721/EC of 24 September 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2009 L 257, p. 28).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
50

In those circumstances, the Court cannot uphold the institutions’ view that Article 2(7) of the basic regulation allows them, without infringing the Anti-Dumping Agreement, not to apply rules for calculating normal value compatible with Article 2.1 and 2.2 of that agreement even when the second supplementary provision to paragraph 1 of Article VI of the GATT does not apply and when the instruments of accession to the WTO of the exporting country do not provide for such possibility. It is also apparent from the foregoing analysis that the institutions’ argument that neither the Anti-Dumping Agreement nor the GATT create a particular obligation to treat Armenia as a market economy is irrelevant, since the obligation arising from those agreements consists in applying, in respect of other WTO members such as the Republic of Armenia, rules compatible with Article 2.1 and 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, subject to the reservations set out in paragraphs 48 and 49 above. In that regard, the Court notes that Article 2.1 and 2.2 comprise a set of clear, precise and detailed rules laying down the procedure for calculating the normal value of the like product (see paragraph 36 above) and do not attach to those rules conditions making their application subject to the discretion of the WTO members. In addition, the possibility of derogating from those rules on the basis of the second supplementary provision to paragraph 1 of Article VI of the GATT, to which Article 2.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement refers, is delimited precisely. In particular, the ‘countr[ies] which ha[ve] a complete or substantially complete monopoly of [their] trade and where all domestic prices are fixed by the State’ fall within the scope of that supplementary provision. Consequently, that legal rule is clear as to the extent of the situations which it covers, so as to allow both the Commission and the Council to assess whether a WTO member meets the relevant description and the Courts of the European Union to review that assessment and, where relevant, draw the necessary conclusions in accordance with the case-law set out in paragraph 36 above.
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 distinctive character

–

Distinctive character not acquired through use (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 30, 35

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 January 2010 (Case R 1018/2009-2) concerning an application for registration of a sign representing a parallelogram as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>11

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Société Air France to pay the costs.
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 39, 43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 February 2010 (Case R 662/2009‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tecnifar – Industria Tecnica Farmaceutica, SA and Longevity Health Products, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>18

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Longevity Health Products, Inc. to pay the costs.
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 25, 38, 40

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2009 (Case R 953/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Intermark Srl and Natex International Trade SpA.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Intermark Srl to pay the costs.
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 18, 25, 49, 52

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 May 2010 (Case R 1309/2009‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Deichmann SE and Nike International Ltd.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nike International Ltd to pay the costs.
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 19, 23, 66, 71-72

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 July 2010 (Case R 1393/2009-1) concerning an opposition procedure between SE-Blusen Stenau GmbH and Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 July 2010 (Case R 1393/2009-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by SE-Blusen Stenau GmbH;

3. Orders Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH to bear its own 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 29, 36-37

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2010 (Case R 1560/2009-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark RESTORE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders Abbott Laboratories 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 enjoying a reputation

–

Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services

–

Conditions

–

Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 30, 42, 53, 79

)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

)

Subject of the case

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

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;

3. Orders Louis Vuitton Malletier, Friis Group International ApS and OHIM each to bear the costs they have incurred in the course of the proceeding before the General Court.
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark — Community trade mark as an item of property — Assimilation of the Community trade mark to the national trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark as an item of property (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 16(1), and 24) (see paras 36-37)

2. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2)) (see paras 54-55)

3. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Determination of a quantitative threshold of minimum use — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2)) (see paras 56-57)
A phonetic comparison is not relevant in the examination of the similarity of a figurative mark lacking word elements with another mark for the purposes of the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark. A figurative mark lacking word elements cannot, by definition, be pronounced. At the very most, its visual or conceptual content can be described orally. Such a description, however, necessarily coincides with either the visual perception or the conceptual perception of the mark in question. Consequently, it is not necessary to examine separately the phonetic perception of a figurative mark lacking word elements and to compare it with the phonetic perception of other marks.

Under both Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is restricted in its examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought.

Under those provisions, the Office is required to examine, in its decisions, the merits of a claim relating to the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier marks acquired through their earlier use, expressly relied on by the applicant for a declaration of invalidity in its written submissions.

On the one hand, the standard form does not contain a section dealing with the distinctiveness of the earlier marks, but only a section dealing with their possible reputation. On the other hand, it follows neither from Regulation No 40/94 nor from Regulation No 207/2009 that, in order to be admissible, the claim that the earlier mark has acquired enhanced distinctiveness must be made when the application for a declaration of invalidity is submitted.

(see paras 58, 61, 62)
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Parliament’s reply to an initial application for access to documents — Failure of Parliament to inform the person concerned of the right to submit a confirmatory application — Exceptional admissibility of the action (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 7 and 8) (see paras 42-46)

2. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements (European Parliament and Council Regulation 1049/2001, Arts 7 and 8; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 49-52)

3. European Union — Institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of private life and the integrity of the individual — Scope of the exception — Documents having been accessible to the public but no longer accessible — Inclusion (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b)) (see paras 74-76)

4. European Union — Institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of private life and the integrity of the individual — Requirement that the institution should examine the documents specifically and individually — Duty to state reasons — Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b)) (see paras 88-101)