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 — Trade marks contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Examination by reference to the perception of the sign by the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(f)) (see paras 12, 21-23)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Figurative mark FICKEN LIQUORS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(f)) (see paras 13-38)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(f)) (see para. 19)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 November 2012 (Case R 2544/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative mark FICKEN LIQUORS as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Efag Trade Mark Company GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2014 — Endoceutics v OHIM — Merck (FEMIVIA)

(Case T‑324/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark FEMIVIA — Earlier Community word mark FEMIBIO — International registration designating the European Community of the earlier figurative mark femibion — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-22, 29)

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 mark FEMIVIA and figurative mark femibion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26-28, 45-49)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2013 (Case R 1021/2012-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Merck KGaA and Endoceutics, Inc.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — Assessment in the light of information available to the applicant at the time the action brought (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 21-24, 28)

2. EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Duty to comply with the principle of equal treatment of tenderers — Need to ensure equal opportunities and comply with the principle of transparency — Scope — Conflict of interests between a tenderer and a member of the evaluation committee — Infringement — Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 52(2), and 89(1)) (see paras 51-53, 59, 82)

3. EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (see paras 95, 96)

4. EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Option conferred on the awarding authority to make contact with a tenderer after the opening of tenders — No obligation to invite a tenderer to complete or explain the supporting documents submitted in relation to the exclusion and selection criteria (Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 146(3)) (see para. 105)

5. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 128)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment, in whole or in part, of the decisions by which the Commission refused to rank Communicaid Group Ltd in first place for Lots 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of the Call for Tenders HR/R3/PR/2012/002 relating to framework agreements for the provision of language training for staff of the institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union in Brussels (Belgium).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Communicaid Group Ltd to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.
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 16, 20)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 18)

3. 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 — Word mark GRAPHENE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 23, 24)

4. 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. 26)

5. 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 paras 35, 36)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 June 2013 (Case R 210/2013-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign GRAPHENE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Joseba Larrañaga Otaño and Mikel Larrañaga Otaño to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 November 2014 —

Out of the blue v OHIM — Dubois and Another (FUNNY BANDS)

(Case T‑344/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark FUNNY BANDS — Earlier national trade name FUNNY BANDS — Earlier national Internet domain name ‘www.funny-bands.com’ — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Use of a sign in the course of trade of more than mere local significance — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rejection of the opposition’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Conditions — Local scope of sign (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 22-25)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Conditions — Assessment by reference to the criteria determined by the national law governing the sign relied on (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see para. 36)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Word mark FUNNY BANDS — Trade name FUNNY BANDS and Internet domain name www.funny-bands.com (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see para. 37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 April 2013 (Case R 542/2012‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between Out of the blue KG and Mr Frédéric Dubois and Another.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 December 2014 — BSH v OHIM — LG Electronics (compressor technology)

(Case T‑595/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark compressor technology — Earlier national word marks KOMPRESSOR — Relative ground for refusal — Partial refusal to register — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23)

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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 27)

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 — Figurative marks compressor technology and word marks KOMPRESSOR (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 34)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1176/2012-1), concerning opposition proceedings between LG Electronics, Inc. and BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 — Türkiye Garanti Bankasi v OHIM — Card & Finance Consulting (bonus & more)

(Case T‑33/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark bonus & more — Earlier international figurative mark bonus net — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 24)

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 27)

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 — Figurative marks bonus & more and bonus net (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 25, 43, 46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2012 (Case R 1890/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Türkiye Garanti Bankasi AS and Card & Finance Consulting GmbH.

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 12 November 2012 (Case R 1890/2011-4);
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 20 January 2015 — Aic v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts)

(Case T‑616/13)

‛Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a heat exchanger insert — Ground for invalidity — Lack of visibility of part of a complex product — Article 4(2) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002’

1. Community designs — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Action for invalidity — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 63(1)) (see paras 22, 23)

2. Community designs — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 6/2002) (see para. 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2013 (Case R 293/2012-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between ACV Manufacturing and Aic S.A.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 —

Costa Crociere v OHIM — Guerlain (SAMSARA)

(Case T‑388/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark SAMSARA — Earlier Community word mark SAMSARA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 16)

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 SAMSARA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19, 34, 39)

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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 24)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2013 (Case R 2049/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Guerlain SA and Costa Crociere SpA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union 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) in so far as it applies a financial correction to the French Republic in the context of rural development support measures for sheep not covered by an application for sheep premiums for the accounting years 2008 and 2009;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2015 — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure v OHIM — Gauff (Gauff THE ENGINEERS WITH THE BROADER VIEW)

(Case T‑586/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Gauff THE ENGINEERS WITH THE BROADER VIEW — Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks GAUFF — Relative grounds for refusal — Partial refusal to register — Application for restitutio in integrum — Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Restitutio in integrum — Conditions — Vigilance required by circumstances — Exceptional events, which cannot therefore be predicted (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 81(1)) (see paras 23-25)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Restitutio in integrum — Conditions under which applicable — Restrictive interpretation (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 81(1)) (see para. 26)

3. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality (see para. 33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 118/2013-1) relating to an application for restitutio in integrum.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD financing — Clearance of accounts — Definitive refusal to accept responsibility for certain expenses — Need for prior inter partes procedure (see para. 51)

2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD financing — Clearance of accounts — Elaboration of decisions — Written communication by the Commission to Member States of the results of its checks — Content — Conditions — Non-compliance — Relevance (Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 7(4), fifth para; Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 52-59, 71, 72)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union 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 2013 L 219, p. 49), in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Federal Republic of Germany, in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch for 2003 to 2005, totalling EUR 6 192 951.34.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union 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), in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Federal Republic of Germany, in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch, for 2003 to 2005;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 October 2015 —

TrekStor v OHIM — MSI Technology (MovieStation)

(Case T‑636/13)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark MovieStation — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52 of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 18, 19)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20, 22)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Word mark MovieStation (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c), and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 21, 34, 38-40)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of non-discrimination — Irrelevant (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 31-33)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept — Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 37)

6. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks which are devoid of distinctive character, descriptive or commonplace — Exception — Distinctive character acquired through use — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) to (d)) (see para. 59)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2013 (Case R 1914/2012-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between TrekStor Ltd and MSI Technology GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders TrekStor Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);