ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
34

In the alternative, in any event, the decision of the NMa of 16 December 2009 may be considered to be a decision based on the second paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation No 1/2003. As submitted by the Commission, that provision covers all cases in which the competition authority of a Member State finds that the information in its possession does not allow it to conclude that the conditions for prohibition are met, without it being necessary for it to have ordered any preliminary measures of inquiry. In the present case, in finding, in its decision of 16 December 2009, that a review under Article 102 TFEU of the charges applied from April 2009 would have the same outcome as the review of the third complaint and in rejecting, consequently, the second complaint in accordance with its priority policy, the NMa necessarily took the view that the conditions for prohibition had not been satisfied. Moreover, a finding that a decision by a competition authority of a Member State to reject a complaint on priority grounds constitutes a decision taken on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 5 of that regulation is consistent with the judgment in Tele2 Polska, paragraph 32 above (EU:C:2011:270), in which the Court of Justice found that that article restrictively listed the type of decisions which could be taken by a national authority. Any different interpretation would have the effect of depriving the competition authorities of Member States of the possibility of taking decisions to reject complaints on priority grounds, even though competition authorities do rely on such grounds when taking closure decisions which are more or less formal. Consequently, the interpretation set out in paragraph 26 above is consistent with Article 5 of that regulation, since the Commission may reject a complaint on the ground that it has already been rejected by decision of a competition authority of a Member State on priority grounds.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — Bateaux mouches v OHIM (BATEAUX MOUCHES)

(Case T‑72/14)

‛Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark BATEAUX MOUCHES — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20-23)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark BATEAUX MOUCHES (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 37, 38, 48)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Exception — Distinctive character acquired through use — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(3)) (see paras 64-68)

4. Community trade mark — 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 207/2009) (see para. 80)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 November 2013 (Case R 284/2013‑2) concerning the registration of the word mark BATEAUX MOUCHES as an international registration designating the European Community.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 January 2015 — Blackrock v OHIM (INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD)

(Case T‑59/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Inadmissibility (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19-21)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Slogan with a fantasy character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 22)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 24)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26-41)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2013 (Case R 573/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
2.

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), 130(1), and 132(1)) (see paras 22-24)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2015 —

adidas v OHIM — Shoe Branding Europe (Two parallel stripes on a shoe)

(Case T‑145/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community position mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe — Community and national figurative marks and earlier international registration representing three parallel stripes applied to shoes and clothing — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) 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 17-20, 46, 48)

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 — Perception by the public of a sign as constituting an ornament — Irrelevant — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 28)

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 — Positional mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe — Figurative marks representing three parallel bands attached to shoes (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 43, 49, 50)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Link between the marks (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b), and (5)) (see para. 52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2013 (Case R 1208/2012‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between adidas AG and Shoe Branding Europe BVBA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 November 2013 (Case R 1208/2012‑2);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by adidas AG;
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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 22)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted by a colour or a combination of colours (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23-26)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 27)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark representing white dots on an ivory background (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 56, 57)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Examination of the grounds for refusal having regard to each of the products or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 59)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2014 (Case R 705/2013-1) relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing white dots on an ivory background.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders EE Ltd to pay the costs.
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 paras 26, 27)
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 — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 14, 15)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark representing a black ribbon (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 16-18, 21-24, 29, 34)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Signs of which a trade mark may consist — Colours or combinations of colours — Condition — Distinctive character — Account to be taken of the public interest in not unduly restricting the availability of colours (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 32)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 May 2014 (Case R 1940/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a black ribbon as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Verein Sterbehilfe Deutschland (Verein StHD) 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 — Direction issued to the Office — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 9)

2. 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 — Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before OHIM bodies — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 10)

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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 16)

4. 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 — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 17)

5. 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 — Figurative mark BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 18-21, 23)

6. 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. 22)

7. Community trade mark — 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 207/2009) (see para. 25)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2013 (Case R 1749/2013-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 October 2015 —

Sonova Holding v OHIM (FLEX)

(Case T‑187/14)

‛Community trade mark — Community word mark FLEX — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) 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 which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 12-14)

2. 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 FLEX (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20-29)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2013 (Case R 357/2013-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign FLEX as a community trade mark.

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 — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 14)

2. 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 — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 15)

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 — Figurative mark ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16-18, 20, 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. 19)

5. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Misuse of powers — Concept (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 26)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2014 (Case R 121/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 October 2015 —

The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a face with horns)

(Case T‑242/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a face with horns — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 30)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark constituted by the shape of the product — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 31-37)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark constituted by the shape of a face with horns (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 39-47)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see paras 49-53)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2014 (Case R 836/2013-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a face with horns.

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 16 January 2014 (Case R 836/2013-1) with regard to the refusal to register the mark applied for in respect of ‘preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; milk products’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 —

Hewlett Packard Development Company v OHIM (ELITEPAD)

(Case T‑470/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark ELITEPAD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) 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 — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 14, 15, 32)

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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16-18)

3. 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 — Word mark ELITEPAD (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 24-29)

4. Community trade mark — 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 (see paras 33, 34)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2014 (Case R 884/2013-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ELITEPAD as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 17, 21, 43)
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 16 January 2014 (Case R 837/2013-1) with regard to the refusal to register the mark applied for in respect of ‘preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; milk products’;