ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2011 – ATB Norte v OHIM – Bricocenter Italia (maxi BRICO CENTER)

(Case T-481/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark maxi BRICO CENTER – Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro – Relative ground for refusal – 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 25, 33-34, 57, 66-67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2009 (Case R 1046/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bricocenter Italia Srl Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark maxi BRICO CENTER in respect of services in Class 35 – Application No 4939005 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Earlier figurative Community trade marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro (No 989046) and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro (No 3262623) in respect of services in Classes 35, 37 and 39 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled; opposition dismissed in its entirety





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 28 September 2009 (Case R 1046/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 25 May 2011 – São Paulo Alpargatas v OHIM – Fischer (BAHIANAS LAS ORIGINALES)

(Case T-422/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark BAHIANAS LAS ORIGINALES – Earlier Community and national figurative trade marks havaianas and earlier national word mark HAVAIANAS – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of 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 19, 41-42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 August 2009 (Case R 1477/2008-2), concerning opposition proceedings between São Paulo Alpargatas, SA and Enrique Fischer.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Enrique Fischer Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark containing the word component BAHIANAS LAS ORIGINALES for goods in Class 25 – Application No 5024591 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: São Paulo Alpargatas, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark containing the word component havaianas (No 3772431), Spanish figurative mark containing the word component havaianas (M2341904) and Spanish word mark HAVAIANAS (M2341905), all for goods in Class 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Application for Community mark dismissed in its entirety Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled





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 17 August 2009 (Case R 1477/2008-2);

2. Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by São Paulo Alpargatas, SA;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 September 2011 – Meredith v OHIM (BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS)

(Case T-524/09)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS – Absolute ground for refusal – Partial refusal by the examiner to register the mark – Lack of distinctive character – 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 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23-24)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2009 (Case R 517/2009-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 – Evonik Industries v OHIM (Purple rectangle with a rounded side)

(Case T-499/09)

Community trade mark – Application for a Community figurative mark representing a purple rectangle with a rounded side – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – 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 distinctive character – Figurative mark representing a purple rectangle with a rounded side (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 34-35, 44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2009 (Case R 491/2009-4) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a purple rectangle with a rounded side.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 October 2011 – NEC Display Solutions Europe v OHIM – Nokia (NaViKey)

(Case T-393/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark NaViKey – Earlier Community word mark NAVI – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Breach of the duty to state reasons – Article 75 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 22, 31, 55, 58-60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2009 (Case R 1143/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Nokia Corp. and NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 September 2011 – Rügen Fisch v OHIM – Schwaaner Fischwaren (SCOMBER MIX)

(Case T-201/09)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark SCOMBER MIX – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 28-31)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 230/2007-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Rügen Fisch AG and Schwaaner Fischwaren GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 November 2011 – bpost v Commission

(Case T-514/09)

Public service contracts – Tendering procedure of the PO – Daily transport and delivery of the Official Journal, books, other periodicals and publications – Rejection of the tender of a tenderer and decision to award the contract to another tenderer – Award criteria – Duty to state reasons – Manifest error of assessment – Non-contractual liability

1. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Appeal procedure against decisions of the awarding authority to award public contracts – Audi alteram partem rule – Reconciliation with the protection of business secrets – Bodies responsible for review procedures – Duty to ensure confidentiality and the right to respect for business secrets having regard to information contained in files communicated by the parties – Conditions – Reconciliation of that obligation with the requirements of effective legal protection and respect for defence rights (Art. 267 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2)) (see paras 25-26)

2. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Award of contracts – Most economically advantageous tender – Award criteria – Choice of the contracting authorities – Limits – Compliance with the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 97; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 138) (see paras 64, 66)

3. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Obligation to comply with the principle of equal treatment of tenderers – Need to ensure equality of opportunity and comply with the principle of transparency – Scope of the duty of transparency (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 89) (see para. 65)

4. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see para. 121)

5. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 167)

6. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Expenses incurred by a tenderer – Right to compensation – None (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 101) (see para. 173)

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for the annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union, communicated by letter of 17 December 2009, to reject the tender submitted by the applicant under invitation to tender No 10234 ‘Daily transport and delivery of the Official Journal, books, other periodicals and publications’ (OJ 2009/S 176-253034) and award the contract to the successful tenderer, and, second, for damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T‑49/09)

Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure — Provision of services relating to the maintenance and development of the information systems of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Rejection of a tender — Action for annulment — Equal treatment — Duty to state reasons — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Manifest error of assessment — Non‑contractual liability

1. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, during the procedure for the award of a public services contract, not to accept a tender — Assessment having regard to information available to the applicant at the time the action was brought (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(2)) (see paras 33-37, 45)

2. EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (see para. 56)

3. Procedure — Measures of organisation of procedure — Request for production of documents — Duties of the person making the request (see para. 83)

4. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Summary statement of pleas (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 89-90)

5. 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 of the transparency obligation (see paras 107-110)

6. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 127-128)

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 21 November 2008 to reject the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of call for tenders REGIO-A4‑2008-01 for the maintenance and development of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy’s information systems (OJ 2008/S 117-155067) and the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, for damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 —

Kavaklidere-Europe v OHIM — Yakult Honsha (Yakut)



(Case T-276/09)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Yakut — Earlier Community figurative mark Yakult — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Power to issue directions — None (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 17)

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 Yakut and figurative mark Yakult (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 56, 57)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 May 2009 (Case R 1396/2008-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Yakult Honsha Kabushiki Kaisha and Kavaklidere-Europ.

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 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19-20, 25-26, 28

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2009 (Case R 595/2009-4), relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign carcheck.

Information relating to the case

>lt>8

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders CheckMobile GmbH – The Process Solution Company 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, 22, 37, 42, 50, 63

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2010 (Case R 248/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between the Bundesverband der Deutschen Volksbanken und Raiffeisenbanken eV (BVR) and Austria Leasing GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Bundesverband der Deutschen Volksbanken und Raiffeisenbanken eV (BVR) 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 – Exception (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 1(2) and 7(2) and (3)) (see paras 40-41, 50-52)

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 serving to designate the characteristics of a product or service – No acquisition of distinctive character through use (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c) and (3)) (see paras 22, 30, 65)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 November 2009 (Case R 190/2009-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign υγεία as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>13

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Diagnostiko kai Therapeftiko Kentro Athinon ‘Ygeia’ AE 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 20, 28, 59, 65-66

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2010 (Case R 899/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between dm‑drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and Semtee.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), in addition to bearing its own costs;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the intervention of Semtee.
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 44-47

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2010 (Case R 408/2009-4) concerning an opposition procedure between Brighton Collectibles Inc. and Felmar.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Brighton Collectibles Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

3. Orders Felmar to bear its own 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 17, 53-54

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2010 (Case R 216/2009-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Live Nation (Music) UK Ltd and Monster Cable Products, Inc.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Monster Cable Products, Inc. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Union public contracts – Tender procedure – Fixing of a time-limit for the lodging and sending of tenders – Lawfulness – No duty to specify the relevant time zone (Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 130(2)(a) and 145(3), first para.) (see paras 26-35)

2. European Union public contracts – Tender procedure – Time-limits for access to documents calling for tenders – Obligation to supply potential tenderers with the additional information requested – Limits (Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 141(2)) (see paras 39-42)

3. European Union public contracts – Tender procedure – Decision to reject a tender – Duty to state reasons – Scope (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(2) and (3)) (see paras 46-47, 49)

4. European Union public contracts – Tender procedure – Irregularity of the administrative procedure – Effects – Annulment of the contested decision – Conditions (see para. 51)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATIONS (i) for annulment, first, of the decision of the Court of Justice of 9 February 2010 to reject the tender submitted by the consortium of which the applicant is a member in the context of procurement procedure reference AO 008/2009 entitled ‘1 st and 2 nd level support for the users of IT and telephone systems, call centre, end user hardware management’ and, secondly, of the decision of 5 March 2010 confirming the rejection and, thirdly, the decision to award the contract to another tenderer, and (ii) for compensation for the loss allegedly incurred by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the applications;

2. Orders Computer Task Group Luxembourg PSF SA (CTG Luxembourg PSF) to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2012 — Hell Energy Magyarország v OHIM — Hansa Mineralbrunnen (HELL)

(Case T-522/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark HELL — Earlier Community word mark HELLA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and 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 29, 33, 34, 67)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2010 (Case R 1517/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Hansa Mineralbrunnen GmbH and Hell Energy Magyarország.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hell Energy Magyarország kft to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2012 — Hell Energy Magyarország v OHIM — Hansa Mineralbrunnen (HELL)

(Case T-522/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark HELL — Earlier Community word mark HELLA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and 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 29, 33, 34, 67)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2010 (Case R 1517/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Hansa Mineralbrunnen GmbH and Hell Energy Magyarország.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;