ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2012 —

Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM —

Garmo (GAZI Hellim)



(Case T-535/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark GAZI Hellim — Prior collective Community word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — 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 24, 36-40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2010 (Case R 1497/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias and Garmo 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 20 September 2010 (Case R 1497/2009-4);
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2012 —

Portugal v Commission



(Case T‑345/10)

EAGGF — Guidance Section — Reduction of financial assistance — Measures to support investments in agricultural holdings — Effectiveness of controls

1. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Decision on the clearance of accounts — Time-limit — Non-compliance — No effect on the Commission’s obligation to refuse to allow expenses incurred in breach of Community rules (Council Regulation No 1260/1999, Arts 38 and 39; Commission Regulation No 448/2001, Art. 5(3)) (see para. 32)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 65)

3. Member States — Obligations — Duty of loyal cooperation — Application of procedural and substantive rules of national law — Conditions (Art. 4(3) TEU) (see para. 74)

4. Agriculture — EAGGF — 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 (see paras 75, 109)

5. Actions for annulment — Contested act — Assessment of lawfulness — Criteria (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 86)

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Decision C(2010) 4255 of 29 June 2010 concerning the application of financial corrections to assistance from the EAGGF, Guidance Section, allocated to Operational Programme No CCI 1999.PT.06.1.PO.007 (Portugal — National Objective 1 programme) for the measure ‘Investments in agricultural holdings’.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 June 2012 —

Constellation Brands v OHIM (COOK’S)



(Case T-314/10)

Community trade mark — Word mark COOK’S — Failure to apply for renewal of the mark — Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration — 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 — Delegation of tasks concerning the renewal of a trade mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 81(1)) (see paras 17-18)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Restitutio in integrum — Conditions — Vigilance required by circumstances — Exceptional, and thus unpredictable, events — Human error in recording information — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 81(1)) (see paras 19, 28, 29)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2010 (Case R 1048/2009-1) in so far as it dismissed the application for restitutio in integrum.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 October 2012 — Lancôme v OHIM — Focus Magazin Verlag (COLOR FOCUS)

(Case T-204/10)

Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark COLOR FOCUS — Earlier Community word mark FOCUS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the marks — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Abuse of right

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 22, 37, 54)

2. 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 — Word marks COLOR FOCUS and FOCUS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 24, 25, 36, 55)

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 — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 46)

4. European Union law — Principles — Prohibition of abuse of right (see paras 59, 60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2010 (Case R 238/2009-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH and Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 October 2012 — riha v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL&FIT)

(Case T-552/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark VITAL&FIT — Earlier national word mark VITAFIT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 — Aim (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see paras 18, 19)

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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 36)

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 mark VITAL&FIT and word mark VITAFIT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38-41, 62, 65)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42, 43)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Low distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 64)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2010 (Case R 1229/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and riha Richard Hartinger Getränke GmbH & Co. Handels-KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
40

In support of the third plea, the applicant submits, in essence, that the decision to redeploy and to ‘downgrade’ her was not taken in the interests of the service and had no other objective than to psychologically harass and offend her. She states that the redeployment procedure and regrading was therefore pursued for purposes other than those laid down in law. In that regard, she specifies that there was no real need to assign a Prosecutor to Banja Luka urgently, that a procedure was immediately launched to recruit a new Senior Legal Advisor/Legal Counsel (previously Chief of Legal Office) to Sarajevo to replace her and that, at the time of her redeployment to Banja Luka, a call for applications for the position of Criminal Justice Expert in Banja Luka was still ongoing. In addition, she submits that, by the decision of 7 April 2010, she was also ‘downgraded’, in so far as the duties of the Criminal Justice Expert in a regional office were, having regard to the structure of the EUPM and the tasks taken on, inferior to those of the Senior Legal Advisor/Legal Counsel performed in the EUPM headquarters. She also submitted that the redeployment and the ‘downgrading’ were reprisals for sending the letter of 17 March 2010. In support of the fifth plea, the applicant submits that the decision of 7 April 2010 was adopted in order to harass her psychologically, as she was not only redeployed without there being any legitimate ground for doing so, but she was also ‘downgraded’. She adds that her redeployment and her ‘downgrading’ were accompanied by a series of offensive acts, including restrictions on her telephone access, a ‘very aggressive’ email inviting her to clear her office, difficulties in obtaining leave that were not justified, and her exclusion from the main activities of the EUPM during her secondment. In the reply, she set out further acts that she regarded as acts of harassment.
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 23, 45-51

)
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 23, 55-60

)
Keywords



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 24-26, 28-31

)
Neither the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union nor the Treaties contain provisions which state that legal persons which are emanations of States are not entitled to the protection of fundamental rights. Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a procedural provision which is not applicable to procedures before the Courts of the European Union; the aim of that provision is to ensure that a State which is a party to the ECHR is not both applicant and defendant before that court. Moreover, the fact that a State is the guarantor of respect for fundamental rights in its own territory is of no relevance as regards the extent of the rights to which legal persons, which are emanations of that same State, may be entitled in the territory of other States. Finally, neither the fact that a State owns the majority of a legal person’s share capital, nor the fact that the banking services provided by it are necessary to the operation of a State’s economy confers on those activities the status of a public service or implies that such a legal person participates in the exercise of governmental powers.

Unless there are compelling reasons touching on the security of the European Union or of its Member States or the conduct of their international relations which prevent the disclosure of certain information, the Council is required to inform the entity covered by restrictive measures of the actual and specific reasons why it considers that those measures had to be adopted. It is not necessary for the statement of reasons to specify all the relevant matters of fact and law, since the question whether the statement of reasons is adequate must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question.

In those circumstances, a single reason justifying the entry of the applicant on the list of entities assisting nuclear proliferation, which has resulted in the applicant’s funds and economic resources being frozen, namely that the applicant has taken over ongoing operations from another legal person already entered on such lists and also forming the subject-matter of such restrictive measures, is not sufficiently precise, inasmuch as it does not specify how ‘taking over’ is to be construed with regard to banking operations, or which of that bank’s operations the applicant has allegedly taken over, or who were the third parties whom the transactions at issue were ultimately to benefit.

(see paras 72, 73, 77, 80)
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 17, 37 ) Subject of the case Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2011 (Case R 1383/2010‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Kin Cosmetics, SA and Ms Rita Ewald. Operative part Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Ms Rita Ewald to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 2012 — Ewald v OHIM — Kin Cosmetics (Keen)

(Case T-280/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Keen — Community figurative mark KIN — 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 17, 37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2011 (Case R 1383/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Kin Cosmetics, SA and Ms Rita Ewald.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Süd-Chemie v OHIM — Byk-Cera (CERATIX)

(Case T-312/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CERATIX — Earlier national word mark CERATOFIX — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

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 16-24)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 1585/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Süd-Chemie AG and Byk-Cera BV.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM — Chang Qing Qing (GUDDY)

(Case T-389/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark GUDDY — Earlier Community word mark GUCCI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Highly distinctive character of the earlier mark by reason of the public’s recognition of that mark — Evidence — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009’

Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see paras 16, 17)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2011 (Case R 143/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Guccio Gucci SpA and Mr Chang Qing Qing.

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 14 April 2011 (Case R 143/2010-1) so far as it concerns, first, the goods in Class 9 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and, secondly, the precious stones and precious metals in Class 14 of that agreement;
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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31-33)

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 — Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(2), and 8(1)(b)) (see para. 35)

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 mark WALICHNOWY MARKO and verbal mark MAR-KO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35-38, 47)

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 40)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark — Determination of dominant component(s) (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 46)

6. 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 — Account taken by the General Court of matters of law and fact which have not been raised previously before the departments of OHIM — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 48)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2011 (Case R 760/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mar-Ko Fleischwaren GmbH & Co. KG and Mr Marek Marszałkowski.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Marek Marszałkowski to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Exclusion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 13)

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 — Determination of the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25)

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 — Word mark DISCO DESIGNER and figurative mark DISCO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26-28, 36, 37, 44, 45, 53-62, 64, 65)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 32)

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

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 January 2011 (Case R 803/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Distribuidora comercial del frio, SA and Mr Peter Yordanov.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Peter Yordanov to pay the costs.