ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers v OHIM — Ozone Laboratories Pharma (HYPOCHOL)

(Case T-517/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark HYPOCHOL — Earlier national figurative mark HITRECHOL — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 15-17, 45, 46)

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 HYPOCHOL and figurative mark HITRECHOL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21, 53, 54)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23)

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 — Weighting of the elements of similarity or difference between the signs — Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the marketing conditions of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2010 (Case R 1332/2009-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers GmbH & Co. KG and Ozone Laboratories Pharma SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject matter of the dispute — Summary statement of pleas (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 12)

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 paras 16, 22, 38, 39)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks ASTALOY and HASTELLOY (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 21, 27, 28, 34, 37, 68, 69)

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 — Criteria for assessment — Coexistence of two marks on a given market (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 47-49, 51)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 August 2010 (Case R 1530/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Haynes International, Inc. and Höganäs AB.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Höganäs AB 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 18)

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 paras 24, 25, 59)

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 JAMBO AFRIKA and figurative marks JUMBO, JUMBO CUBE, JUMBO MARINADE, JUMBO NOKKOS, JUMBO ROF, JUMBO CHORBA MOUTON-MUTTON and JUMBO Aroma All purpose seasoning Condiment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33-35, 60-62)

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 — High distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 64, 65)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2010 (Case No R 1144/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Preparados Alimenticios, SA and Rila Feinkost-Importe GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Preparados Alimenticios, SA to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Knut IP Management v OHIM — Zoologischer Garten Berlin

(KNUT — DER EISBÄR)

(Case T‑250/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark KNUT — DER EISBÄR — Earlier national word mark KNUD — Relative ground for refusal — 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19, 50, 60, 108)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 21)

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 marks KNUT — DER EISBÄR and KNUD (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 77, 92, 97, 104-106, 121)

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 between the goods or services in question — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 46, 48)

5. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 32)

6. 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 78-81, 113)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2010 (Case R 650/2009‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Zoologischer Garten Berlin AG and Knut IP Management Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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. 19)

2. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Non‑submission of plea based on insufficient proof of genuine use (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2)) (see para. 21)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b), and (2)(a)(ii)) (see paras 33, 34)

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 — Word mark BTS and figurative marks TBS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 59, 64, 69)

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 — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37-39)

6. 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 — Possibility of a similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 41)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2010 (Case R 1380/2009-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Technisynthese SARL and El Corte Inglés, SA.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 April 2011 – Zitro IP v OHIM – Show Ball Informática (BINGO SHOWALL)

(Case T-179/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark BINGO SHOWALL – Earlier figurative Community trade mark SHOW BALL – 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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-21, 44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 February 2010 (Case R 666/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Zitro IP Sàrl and Show Ball Informática Ltda.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Zitro IP Sàrl Community trade mark sought: Word mark BINGO SHOWALL for goods and services in Classes 9, 28 and 41 – Application for registration No 6059919 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Show Ball Informática Ltda Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark No 5092275 containing the word element SHOW BALL, for goods and services in Classes 9 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Application for registration partially dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 September 2011 – ara v OHIM – Allrounder (A with two rectangular motifs)

(Case T-174/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – International registration covering the European Community – Figurative mark A with two triangular motifs – Earlier national word mark A – Relative ground for refusal – No 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 22-24, 38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2010 (Case R 481/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between ara AG and Allrounder SARL.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 – Three‑N‑Products Private v OHIM – Shah (AYUURI NATURAL)

(Case T-313/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark AYUURI NATURAL – Earlier Community word and figurative marks AYUR – 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 54, 64-65)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 June 2010 (Case R 1005/2009‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between (i) Three‑N‑Products Private Ltd and (ii) S. Shah, A. Shah and Mr M. Shah.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 June 2010 (Case R 1005/2009‑4);

2. Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and those of Three‑N‑Products Private Ltd;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2011 – Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana v OHIM – Sotelo Ares (ROSALIA DE CASTRO)

(Case T-421/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark ROSALIA DE CASTRO – Earlier national word mark ROSALIA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the goods – Assessment of the conceptual 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 27, 46-48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2010 (Case R 1804/2008‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between María Constantina Sotelo Ares and Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 December 2011 – El Corte Inglés v OHIM – Azzedine Alaïa (ALIA)

(Case T-152/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark ALIA – Earlier Community figurative mark ALAÏA PARIS – 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 19-20, 59)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2010 (Case R 924/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Azzedine Alaïa and El Corte Inglés, SA.

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 3 February 2010 (Case R 924/2008-4) in so far as the Board of Appeal excluded the goods in Class 3 corresponding to the description ‘Perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices’ from its analysis of the likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2011 – Geemarc Telecom v OHIM – Audioline (AMPLIDECT)

(Case T-59/10)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark AMPLIDECT – Absolute grounds for refusal – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Descriptive character – No distinctive character – Acquisition of distinctive character through use – Evidence

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Exception – Acquisition of distinctive character through use (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(b) and (c), and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 34-35, 67, 69, 81)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2009 (Case R 913/2009-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Audioline GmbH and Geemarc Telecom International Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 February 2012 — Certmedica International and Lehning entreprise v OHIM — Lehning entreprise and Certmedica International (L112)



(Joined Cases T‑77/10 and T‑78/10)

Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark L112 — Earlier French word mark L.114 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Declaration of partial invalidity

Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 73, 76, 106‑110)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2009 (Case R 934/2009‑2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Lehning entreprise and Certmedica International GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. In Case T‑77/10:

– annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 December 2009 (Case R 934/2009‑2) in so far as it declares the registration of the mark L112 to be invalid in respect of ‘veterinary preparations’;

– dismisses the action as to the remainder;

– orders Certmedica International GmbH and OHIM to bear their own costs;

– orders Lehning entreprise to pay the costs incurred in connection with its intervention.

2. In Case T‑78/10:

– dismisses the action;

– orders Lehning entreprise to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM;

– orders Certmedica International to pay the costs incurred in connection with its intervention.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2012 – Kitzinger v OHIM – MDR and ZDF (KICO)

(Case T-249/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark KICO – Earlier national figurative mark and Community word mark KIKA – 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 20, 48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 March 2010 (Case R 1388/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk and Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen and, on the other hand, Kitzinger & Co. (GmbH & Co. KG).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 23 March 2012 – Barilla v OHIM – Brauerei Schlösser (ALIXIR)

(Case T-157/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the Community word mark ALIXIR — Earlier national word mark Elixeer — 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 29-31)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 January 2010 (case R 820/2009-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Brauerei Schlösser GmbH and Barilla G. e R. Fratelli SpA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;