ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 18, 23-29

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2009 (Case R 645/2008-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Umarex Sportwaffen GmbH & Co. KG and Cybergun SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>7

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Cybergun SA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Registration procedure

–

Observation of third parties and opposition

–

Failure to pay opposition fee (Commission Regulation No 2869/95, Arts 8(3) and 8(4)) (see paras 38-41, 44-49

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2009 (Case R 442/2009-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Jager & Polacek GmbH and RT Mediasolutions s.r.o.

Information relating to the case

>lt>12

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Jager & Polacek GmbH 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 33, 44)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion – Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 49)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTIONS brought, in Case T-310/09, against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2009 (Case R 323/2008‑G) concerning an application for registration of the word sign BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING as a Community trade mark and, in Case T-383/09, against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2009 (Case R 138/2009‑1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign BEHAVIOURAL INDEX as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders that Cases T‑310/09 and T‑383/09 be joined for the purposes of the present judgment;

2. Dismisse s the applications;

3. Orders Fuller & Thaler Asset Management, Inc., in Cases T‑310/09 and T‑383/09, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
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, 33-34, 57, 66-67

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 (Case R 1009/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

Information relating to the case

>lt>8

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 24 September 2009 (Case R 1009/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders ATB Norte, SL, Bricocenter Italia and OHIM each to bear their own costs incurred during the proceedings before the General Court.
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 56-57, 86

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2009 (Case R 340/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Bonfait BV and Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

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) of 2 October 2009 (Case R 340/2007-4);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Dr. Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Reclassification of the action – Not included (Arts 230 EC and 238 EC) (see paras 34-35)

2. Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Annulment of reminder letters from the Commission seeking repayment of a subsidy – Lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Inadmissibility (Arts 230 EC and 249 EC) (see paras 45-48)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of the four reminder letters of the Commission dated 11 May 2009, by which it invited the applicant to reimburse the amount paid to it under a grant agreement concluded for a project to be carried out in the context of the specific programme for research and technological development, entitled ‘Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources’.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the Centre d'étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) 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 29, 41-42

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2009 (Case R 1315/2006‑1), concerning opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Metronia, SA.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG 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 61-62

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 August 2009 (Case R 1005/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke GmbH & Co. KG für Straßenbaustoffe and Koninklijke BAM Groep NV.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke GmbH & Co. KG für Straßenbaustoffe 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 BAM Groep NV, including, as regards the latter, the costs necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – 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 (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(1)) (see paras 27, 31)

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 207/09, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 51-53)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/09, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 87, 94, 97)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 July 2009 (Case R 1051/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Vallis K. – Vallis A. & Co. OE and New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Appeals procedure

–

Appeal brought against a decision of the Opposition Division of the Office

–

Examination by Board of Appeal

–

Scope

–

Evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the prescribed time-limit

–

Account taken

–

Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Arts 20(1) and 50(1)) (see paras 30-32, 36-41

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2008 (Case R 740/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Bernhard Rintisch and Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 55-57

)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (see para. 37)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, under the procedure for the award of a public service contract, to reject a tender — Account taken, by way of reasoning, of the replies of an institution to the requests of a discarded tenderer — Condition (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 38-45, 56, 73)

3. EU public contracts — Procedure for award of public contracts —Obligation to comply with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination against tenderers — Scope (Council Regulation No 1605/2002; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002) (see paras 65-68)

4. Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Natural or legal persons — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — Concept — Action by a tenderer, discarded before the stage preceding the decision to award a public contract, against the decision to award the contract to another tenderer — Not included — Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 114, 117-120)

5. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Actual and certain damage — Damage arising through loss of earnings — Future and hypothetical damage — Inadmissibility (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 122-123)

6. Procedure — Costs — Order against the successful party to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicants — Condition (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 87(3)) (see paras 130-132)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in respect of the call for tenders VT/2008/019 EMPL EESSI for the provision of informatics products and services for the EESSI project (OJ 2008/S 111-148 213) and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, for damages.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.
However, where the defendant has brought a counterclaim and the decision that there is no need to adjudicate on the action brought by the applicant is not capable of satisfying that party, it follows that, first, the counterclaim still has a purpose, even though the main claim does not, and, secondly, the defendant still has an interest in its counterclaim being upheld. That is the case with a counterclaim seeking an order that the applicant repay sums advanced to it.

The General Court may declare of its own motion, in accordance with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure, that an action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no need to adjudicate on it where the applicant remains silent following a measure of organisation of procedure concerning the designation of new representatives.

Under Article 238 EC the Courts of the European Union have jurisdiction to give judgment pursuant to any arbitration clause contained in a contract concluded by or on behalf of the European Union, whether that contract be governed by public or private law. The jurisdiction of the Court, under an arbitration clause, to hear a case concerning a contract is to be assessed in the light of Article 238 EC and the terms of the clause itself. That jurisdiction derogates from the ordinary rules of law and must therefore be given a restrictive interpretation. Thus, the Court can, first, adjudicate on a contractual dispute only if the parties have expressed their will to confer that jurisdiction on the Court and, secondly, hear only claims arising from the contract which contains the arbitration clause or claims that are directly connected with the obligations arising from that contract.

Furthermore, in the Community system of legal remedies, the jurisdiction to hear the main action implies the existence of a jurisdiction to hear any counterclaim made in the course of the procedure which is derived from the same act or circumstance that is the subject of the application. That jurisdiction is based on the interests of procedural economy and on the priority of the court first seised, considerations that are also recognised in the procedural systems of the Member States.

(see paras 37, 38, 42)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 June 2012 — Basile and I Marchi Italiani v OHIM — Osra (B. Antonio Basile 1952)

(Case T-134/09)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark B. Antonio Basile 1952 — Earlier national word mark BASILE — Relative ground for refusal — Limitation through acquiescence — Article 53(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)’

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 — General Court taking account of legal and factual elements not previously submitted before the OHIM bodies — Exclusion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see paras 15, 18, 22)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Limitation through acquiescence — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 30-32)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 39, 62)

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 — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 41, 44, 45)

5. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark B. Antonio Basile 1952 and word mark BASILE (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b), and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 61, 63, 64, 69)

Re:

ACTION brought against the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2009 (Case R 1436/2007-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Osra SA and Mr Antonio Basile.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Removes the name of the second applicant, I Marchi Italiani Srl, from the list of applicants in Case T-134/09;

2. Dismisses the action;

3. Orders Mr Antonio Basile to pay the costs, other than those relating to the discontinuance;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM — Alcon (BAÑOFTAL)

(Case T-346/09)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BAÑOFTAL — Earlier national word marks KAN-OPHTAL and PAN-OPHTAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Rules on languages (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 130(1), and 131) (see paras 30, 32)

2. Procedure — 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 (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 43)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49, 105)

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 BAÑOFTAL — Word marks KAN-OPHTAL and PAN-OPHTAL (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 51, 64, 71, 103, 106)

5. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 85)

6. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States — Effect (see para. 92)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 May 2009 (Case R 795/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH and Alcon Inc.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 May 2009 (Case R 795/2008-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 December 2012 — A. Loacker v OHIM — Editrice Quadratum (QUADRATUM)

(Case T-42/09)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark QUADRATUM — Earlier Community word mark LOACKER QUADRATINI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) — Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 16-18)

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 — Word marks QUADRATUM and LOACKER QUADRATINI (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21, 51, 52)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 22)

4. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 73, first sentence, of Regulation No 40/94 — Scope the same as that of Article 253 EC (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see para. 60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2008 (Case R 34/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between A. Loacker SpA and Editrice Quadratum SpA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;