ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 – Monoscoop v OHIM (SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO)

(Case T-564/08)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(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 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 18, 28, 35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2008 (Case R 816/2008‑2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Monoscoop BV Community trade mark sought: Word mark SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO for goods and services in Classes 9, 28 and 41 – application No 5769013 Decision of the Examiner: Application dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 June 2010 – Atlas Transport v OHIM – Hartmann (ATLAS TRANSPORT)

(Case T-482/08)

Community trade mark – Revocation proceedings – Community word mark ATLAS TRANSPORT – Genuine use of the trade mark – Articles 15 and 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 15 and 51(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Use of the mark in a form which differs through factors not altering the distinctive character of the mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 15(2)(a) and 50(1)(a)) (see paras 42-43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2008 (Case R 1858/2007-4) relating to revocation proceedings between Alfred Hartmann and Atlas Transport GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Atlas Transport GmbH Registered Community trade mark subject to an action for cancellation: Word mark ATLAS TRANSPORT for transport operations (transport of goods) in Class 39 – Community trade mark No 545681 Applicant for a declaration of revocation: Alfred Hartmann Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Application for revocation upheld





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 9 September 2008 in Case R 1858/2007-4;

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Atlas Transport GmbH;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 April 2010 – Kerma v OHIM (BIOPIETRA)

(Case T-586/08)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark BIOPIETRA – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 34)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 October 2008 (Case R 889/2008-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BIOPIETRA as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Kerma SpA Community trade mark sought: Word mark BIOPIETRA for goods in Class 19 – Application No 5658893 Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 July 2010 – Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen‑Anhalt v Commission

(Case T-396/08)

State aid – Training aid – Decision declaring the aid to be in part compatible and in part incompatible with the common market – Need for the aid – Positive external effects – Duty to state reasons

1. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Aid categories, set out in legislation, which can be regarded as compatible with the common market – Regulation No 68/2001 on training aid (Art. 87(3) EC; Commission Regulation No 68/2001, Art. 5) (see paras 36-39, 42-45)

2. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Aid benefiting from the derogation provided under Article 87(3)(c) EC – Operating aid – Not included (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see paras 46-48, 51-52)

3. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Uniform interpretation of EU Law – Interpretation and application in the light of the versions in the various official languages (see para. 53)

4. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market – Assessment in the light of Article 87 EC (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see para. 54)

5. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Training aid – Assessment of the need for the aid (Arts 87(3) EC and 88(2) and (3) EC) (see paras 78, 80, 88)

6. State aid – Examination by the Commission – No observations by the persons concerned – Not relevant to the validity of the Commission decision (Art. 88(2) EC) (see para. 97)

7. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Factors to be taken into consideration (Arts 87(3) EC and 88(2) and (3) EC) (see paras 107-108)

8. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Aid benefiting from the derogation provided under Article 87(3)(c) EC – Conditions – Training aid – Criterion that the aid be necessary (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see para. 117)

9. State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Aid benefiting from the derogation provided under Article 87(3)(c) EC – Conditions – Training aid – Criterion that the aid be necessary (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see paras 130-131, 133)

10. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision on State aid (Arts 87(3) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 143-144)

Re:

APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/878/EC of 2 July 2008 on State aid which Germany is planning to implement for DHL (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 31).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2010 – Wilfer v OHIM (Representation of the head of a guitar)

(Case T-458/08)

Community trade mark – Application for a Community figurative mark representing the head of a guitar in silver, grey and brown – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Examination of the facts of its own motion – Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009) – Duty to state reasons – First sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) – Equal treatment

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 52, 60)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion – Scope (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(1)) (see paras 71-72)

3. Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Legality – Examination by the Community judicature – Criteria (Council Regulation No 40/94) (see paras 93-95)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2008 (Case R 78/2007-4), concerning the registration as a Community trade mark of the figurative sign representing the head of a guitar in the colours silver, grey and brown.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Hans-Peter Wilfer Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark representing the head of a guitar in the colours silver, grey and brown, for goods in Classes 9 and 15 – Application No 2639821 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused 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 September 2010 – C‑Content v Commission

(Case T-247/08)

Non-contractual liability – Public service contracts – Community tendering procedures – Electronic publication services – Irregularities and infringements of Community law allegedly committed by the Publications Office – Limitation periods – Causal link

1. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Date to be taken into consideration – Point at which the conditions for operation of non-contractual liability are met (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 52-55)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 72-73)

3. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Expenses incurred by a tenderer – Right to compensation – None – Exception – Infringement of Community law (see paras 86-87)

4. Non-contractual liability – Damage – Damage for which compensation is available – Costs incurred for the proceedings (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 88-89)

5. Non-contractual liability – Damage – Damage for which compensation is available – Concept – Costs incurred before the European Ombudsman (Arts 195(1) EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute of the European Ombudsman, Art. 2(6) and (7)) (see paras 90-91)

Re:

APPLICATION for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of irregularities and infringements of Community law committed by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities in connection with a number of Community tender procedures for electronic publication services.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as in part inadmissible and in part unfounded;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 – Galileo International Technology v OHIM – Galileo Sistemas y Servicios (GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS)

(Case T-488/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark ‘GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS’ – Earlier Community word marks ‘GALILEO’ – Earlier Community figurative mark ‘powered by Galileo’ – Earlier Community figurative marks ‘GALILEO INTERNATIONAL’ – 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)

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24-25, 49)

2. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal brought against a decision by a department of OHIM – Examination by the Board of Appeal – Scope – Appeal against a decision having allowed an opposition (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 62(1)) (see paras 59-60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 403/2006-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Galileo International Technology, LLC and Galileo Sistemas y Servicios, SL.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 September 2011 – Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat v OHIM – Quant (AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA)

(Case T-522/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA – Earlier Community figurative mark representing a black and white flower – 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 25, 36, 54, 67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2008 (Case R 1523/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mary Quant Ltd and Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 31 January 2012 – Spain v Commission

(Case T-206/08)

EAGGF – ‘Guarantee’ section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Wine sector – Prohibition on new vine plantations – National monitoring systems – Lump-sum financial correction – Procedural guarantees – Error of assessment – Proportionality

1. 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. 253 EC) (see paras 24-25)

2. Union law – Principles – Rights of defence – Whether applicable to administrative procedures initiated by the Commission – Compliance when communicating the results of checks carried out in the context of managing the EAGGF – Scope (Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 45-47)

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing – Grant of aids and subsidies – Obligation on Member States to organise an efficient system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks – Implied obligation – Scope (Council Regulations No 2392/86, Art. 4(4), and No 1493/1999, Art. 2(1); Commission Regulation No 2729/2000, Art. 5(2)) (see paras 77-78)

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 79, 104-105, 114, 122)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2008/321/EC of 8 April 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2008 L 109, p. 35).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23, 39

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2008 (Case R 1410/2008-1) concerning the international registration, designating the European Community, of the word sign NATURE WATCH.

Information relating to the case

>lt>15

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders hofherr communikation 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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 48

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 January 2009 (Case R 1536/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Gilmar SpA and Icebreaker Ltd.

Information relating to the case

>lt>24

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Icebreaker Ltd to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2008 (Case R 1244/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Went Computing Consultancy Group BV and Eliza Corp.

Information relating to the case

>lt>16

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Eliza Corporation to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and by Went Computing Consultancy Group BV.
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 any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 28-37

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 (Case R-379/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of a colour sign, consisting in the combination of the colours grey and red, as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deutsche Bahn AG 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 any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 49-50

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 November 2008 (Case R 1094/2008-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign diegesellschafter.de as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deutsche Behindertenhilfe – Aktion Mensch eV 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 23, 32-33

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2009 (Case R 1204/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Gruppo Lepetit SpA and Longevity Health Products, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>14

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Longevity Health Products, Inc., to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 88-89

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2009 (Case R 1088/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Epco Sistemas SL and Epcos AG.

Information relating to the case

>lt>7

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Epcos AG 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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21-24, 37-38

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2009 (Case R 1465/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Meister & Co. AG and Visti Beheer BV.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Visti Beheer BV to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by OHIM;

3. Orders Meister & Co. AG to bear its own costs.
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 – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 26-27)

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 45, 69)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2009 (Case R 824/2008‑1), concerning opposition proceedings between Fribo Foods Ltd and Agropecuaria Friboi, Ltda.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders J & F Participações SA 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

–

Similarity of the marks concerned

–

Criteria for assessment

–

Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35-36

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 August 2009 (Case R 1607/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between CheapFlights International Ltd and Cheapflights Ltd.

Information relating to the case

>lt>11

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 31 August 2009 (Case R 1607/2007-4);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders OHIM and Cheapflights Ltd to pay the costs including those incurred by CheapFlights International Ltd in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.