ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 – Gühring v OHIM (Combination of the colours broom yellow and silver grey and combination of the colours yellow ochre and silver grey)

(Cases T-299/09 and T-300/09)

Community trade mark – Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a combination of the colours broom yellow and silver grey – Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a combination of the colours yellow ochre and silver grey – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Examination of the facts of the Court’s own motion – Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Duty to state reasons – Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009

1. 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 253 EC (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 16)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see paras 17-19)

3. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 63, 65, 73)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2009 (Cases R 1330/2008-1 and R 1329/2008-1) concerning applications for registration of the combination of the colours broom yellow and silver grey and the combination of the colours yellow ochre and silver grey as Community trade marks.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade marks: Gühring OHG Community trade marks concerned: Mark made up of a combination of the colours of broom yellow and silver grey for goods in Class 7 – Application No 6703581 Mark made up of a combination of the colours of yellow ochre and silver grey for goods in Class 7 – Application No 6703565 Decision of the Opposition Division: Registrations refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeals dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders that Cases T-299/09 and T-300/09 be joined for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 April 2011 – Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida v OHIM – Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida (PUERTA DE LABASTIDA)

(Case T-345/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark PUERTA DE LABASTIDA – Earlier national word mark CASTILLO DE LABASTIDA – Earlier Community word marks CASTILLO LABASTIDA –Relative ground for refusal – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

1. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 19-26)

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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40-43, 67, 69)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 May 2009 (Case R 1021/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida, S. Coop. Ltda and Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida, SL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida, SL Community trade mark sought: Word mark PUERTA DE LABASTIDA for goods and services in Classes 29, 33 and 35 – Application No 4473278 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida, S. Coop. Ltda Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark CASTILLO DE LABASTIDA (No 617137) for goods in Class 33; Community word mark CASTILLO LABASTIDA (No 23382) for goods in Class 33; and Community word mark CASTILLO LABASTIDA (No 3515566) for services in Classes 35, 39 and 43 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 – Oetker Nahrungsmittel v OHIM – Bonfait (Buonfatti)

(Case T-471/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark ‘Buonfatti’ – Earlier Benelux word mark Bonfait – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 56-57, 86)

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

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG Community trade mark sought: Word mark Buonfatti for goods in Classes 29 and 30 – Application No 3939915 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bonfait BV Mark or sign cited in opposition: In particular, the Benelux word mark Bonfait No 393133 and the figurative Community trade mark Bonfait No 648816 for goods in Classes 29 and 30 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Decision annulled; registration refused





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);
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 May 2011 – Commission v New Acoustic Music Association and Hildibrandsdottir

(Case T-464/09)

Arbitration clause – Contract for financial assistance concluded under the ‘Culture 2000’ Framework Programme – Implementation of the action entitled ‘European Music Roadwork’ – Non-performance of the contract – Repayment of part of the amounts advanced – Partial inadmissibility of the action – Procedure by default – Legal aid

1. Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Contract concluded between the Commission and a partnership under the law of England and Wales without legal personality – Action by the Commission against the partnership as such – Application inadmissible (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 50-53)

2. Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Contract concluded between the Commission and a partnership for the implementation of a project under the Culture 2000 Framework Programme – Non-compliance with obligations under the contract – Presentation of ineligible invoices – Repayment of the excess, plus interest for delay (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 58-71)

Re:

APPLICATION by the Commission under an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC, seeking an order that New Acoustic Music Association and Ms Hildibrandsdottir repay to it part of the amount of the advances paid, together with default interest, in performance of Contract No 2003-1895/001-001, to carry out the action entitled ‘CLT2003/A1/GB-317 – European Music Roadwork’, as part of the ‘Culture 2000’ Framework Programme established by Decision 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 February 2000 (OJ 2000 L 63, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that the action is inadmissible in so far as it is brought against New Acoustic Music Association;

2. Orders Ms Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdottir, as a member of the New Acoustic Music Association partnership, to repay to the European Commission the amount of EUR 31 136.23, together with interest at the rate of 7.70% per annum as of 14 January 2008 until the debt is fully discharged;

3. Orders Ms Hildibrandsdottir to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011 – Ergo Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM – DeguDent (ERGO)

(Case T-382/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark ERGO – Prior Community and national word marks CERGO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Duty to rule on the entirety of the action – Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal – Article 64(1) 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 28, 61-62, 66)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 (Case R 44/2008‑4) concerning opposition proceedings between DeguDent GmbH and Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG.

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 23 July 2009 (Case R 44/2008‑4) in so far as the Board of Appeal omitted to rule on the action brought before it as regards goods in Class 5;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 September 2011 – El Jirari Bouzekri v OHIM – Nike International (NC NICKOL)

(Case T-207/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark NC NICKOL – Earlier Community figurative mark NIKE – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity between the signs – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b) and (5)) (see paras 29-31)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 February 2009 (Case R 554/2008‑2) relating to opposition proceedings between Nike International Ltd and Mustapha El Jirari Bouzekri.

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 25 February 2009 (Case R 554/2008-2);
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2011 – CEVA v Commission

(Case T-285/09)

Specific programme for research and technological development in the field of research into living resources – Project Seapura – Grant agreement – Arbitration clause – Application for the reimbursement of sums paid in advance under a research financing contract – Reminder letters – Action for annulment – Inadmissibility

1. 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)

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

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2012 — Hipp v OHIM — Nestlé (Bebio)

(Case T‑41/09)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Bebio — Earlier Community word mark and international word mark BEBA — Partial refusal of registration — 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 30, 55-57)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 November 2008 (Case R 1790/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Société des Produits Nestlé, S.A. and Hipp & Co KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 February 2012 —

skytron energy v OHIM (arraybox)



(Case T‑321/09)

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

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20‑22, 36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2009 (Case R 1680/2008‑1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign arraybox as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 —

Insula v Commission



(Case T-366/09)

Arbitration clause — Financing contracts for research and development projects — Ecres, El Hierro, Islands 2010, Opet I, Opet II, Opet Ola, Respire, Sustainable Communities and Virtual Campus contracts — Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements in respect of some of the declared expenses — Reimbursement of sums advanced — Partial inadmissibility of the action — Counterclaim by the Commission

1. Proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Contract providing for Community financial assistance for a research and development project — Claim for repayment of certain costs — Claim for damages — Counterclaim with claim for default interest — Application of national law — Finding of non-compliance with contractual obligations — Commission’s right to repayment of the advance, plus default interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank (Art. 238 EC; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 86(2)) (see paras 81, 105, 203-206, 262)

2. Proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Contract subject to national law — Application of national provisions on jurisdiction — Exclusion (Art. 238 EC) (see para. 82)

3. Proceedings — Subject-matter of the dispute — Alteration once proceedings have been started — Prohibition (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1) and 48(2)) (see paras 88, 89)

4. Proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Amplification of an existing plea and close link with the latter (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 48(2)) (see para. 224)

5. Proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Action for compensation for damage caused by a Community institution — Application seeking compensation in the abstract with no explanation in that regard — Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 229, 241, 247)

Re:

APPLICATION, on the basis of Article 238 EC, for a declaration, first, that a claim of the Commission of EUR 114 996.82 is unfounded and, second, that a claim of the Commission of EUR 253 617.08 is well founded in part, and that the Commission be ordered to pay the applicant damages of EUR 146 261.06, principally, and of EUR 573 273.42, in the alternative.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action brought by the Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula);

2. Orders Insula to pay the European Commission the principal sum of EUR 114 996.82, increased by default interest at the rate of 2.5% per annum, from 16 August 2009 until full payment of that principal sum;

3. Orders Insula to pay the Commission the principal sum of EUR 253 617.08, increased by default interest at the rate of 2.5% per annum, from 8 September 2009 until full payment of that principal sum;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the Commission’s counterclaim;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Obligation on Member States to establish management and control systems – Serious inadequacies capable of leading to systemic irregularities – Consequence – Suspension of intermediate payments (Council Regulation No 1260/1999, Arts 38(1) and 39(2)(c) and (3); Commission Regulation No 438/2001, Arts 3, 4 and 7) (see paras 23-25)

2. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Decision to reduce financial aid by reason of irregularities – Financial consequences not ascertainable – Flat-rate correction – Breach of principle of proportionality – None (Council Regulation No 1260/1999, Art. 39(3)) (see paras 36-38)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9827 of 10 December 2009 applying financial corrections to the EAGGF assistance, Guidance Section, awarded to the operational programme CCI 2000.ES.16.1.PO.007 (Spain, Castilla y León) in relation to the measure improving processing and marketing of agricultural products.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain 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 devoid of distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 35-36

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2011 (Case R 0942/2009‑1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a watch as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Timehouse GmbH 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, 41-43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2010 (Case R 1625/2008‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ben Ri Electrónica, SA and Sacopa, 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 3 February 2010 (Case R 1625/2008-4);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ben-Ri Electrónica, SA.
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 50, 55

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 January 2010 (Case R 1514/2008 2) relating to opposition proceedings between Seven SpA and Seven for all Mankind LLC.

Operative part

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 28 January 2010 (Case R 1514/2008 2);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Seven SpA in the proceedings before the General Court and those incurred by Seven SpA for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

4. Orders Seven for all Mankind LLC 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 23-24, 26-27, 34

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2010 (Case R 338/2010‑1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Mixfront 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

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 42, 50-51, 58-60

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2010 (Case R 1102/2008‑1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Ultra d.o.o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav and mPAY24 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 March 2010 (Case R 1102/2008‑1);

2. Orders OHIM 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23, 46, 50

)