ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 April 2010 – Claro v OHIM – Telefónica (Claro)

(Case T-225/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community three-dimensional mark Claro – Earlier Community word mark CLARO – Inadmissibility of the appeal brought before the Board of Appeal – Articles 59 and 62 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 60 and 64 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Rule 49(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Time-limit and form of appeal – Lodging of a document setting out the grounds within the time-limits – Condition of admissibility (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 59; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 49) (see paras 19-21)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2009 (Case R 1079/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Telefónica, SA and BCP S/A.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Claro SA Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional trade mark containing the word element Claro for goods and services in Classes 9 and 38 – Application No 5229241 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Telefónica, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Earlier Community word mark CLARO (No 2017341), for, inter alia, goods and services in Classes 9 and 38 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed as inadmissible, since the applicant had not filed the relevant statement of grounds for the appeal





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 October 2010 – Accenture Global Services v OHIM – Silver Creek Properties (acsensa)

(Case T-244/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark acsensa – Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks ACCENTURE and accenture – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity of signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Duty to state reasons – Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now 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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 26)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 802/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Accenture Global Services GmbH and Silver Creek Properties SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Silver Creek Properties SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark acsensa for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Accenture Global Services GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark registration for the word mark ACCENTURE for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35 to 37, 41 and 42; German trade mark registration of the figurative mark accenture for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35 to 37, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ACCENTURE for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35 to 37, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration of the figurative mark accenture for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35 to 37, 41 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed in its entirety Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 – LG Electronics v OHIM (KOMPRESSOR PLUS)

(Case T-497/09)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark KOMPRESSOR PLUS – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – 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 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 14, 18-21)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2009 (Case R 397/2009-1), relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign KOMPRESSOR PLUS.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: LG Electronics, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark KOMPRESSOR PLUS for goods in Class 7 – Application No 7282924 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal partially dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2011 – Jiménez Sarmiento v OHIM – Oxygène sport international (Q)

(Case T-455/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Calculation of the time-limit for submitting a pleading setting out the grounds of the action before the Board of Appeal – Rule 70 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Previous practice of OHIM – Concept of excusable error

Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Time-limits – Calculation of time-limits (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 70(2) and (4)) (see paras 29-31)

Re:

ACTION for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 4 September 2009 (Case R 312/2009-4) rejecting the appeal of Mr Vicente J. Jiménez Sarmiento as inadmissible in the opposition proceedings between the latter and Messrs Michel Robin, D. Falzone and M. Monseur.

Information relating to the case

Applicants for the Community trade mark: Messrs Michel Robin, Daniel Falzone et Maxime Monseur Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark consisting of the letter Q angled and with the lower part in bold for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28 – Registration No 4804266 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Vicente J. Jiménez Sarmiento Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark containing the word element quadrata (No 1770312) for goods in Class 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed as inadmissible Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed as inadmissible





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Vicente J. Jiménez Sarmiento to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 April 2011 – Alder Capital v OHIM – Gimv Nederland (ALDER CAPITAL)

(Case T-209/09)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark ALDER CAPITAL – Earlier Benelux word marks Halder and Halder Investments – Earlier international word mark Halder – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Genuine use of the trade mark – Article 15 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009)

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal against a decision by a unit of the Office – Examination by Board of Appeal – Scope – Action against a decision upholding an opposition (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 62(1)) (see paras 20-22)

2. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Examination of the application – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment – Company name, commercial name or trade name (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 44-48)

3. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds of invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier trade mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 8(1)(b) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 80-81, 93)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 February 2009 (Case R 486/2008-2) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Halder Holdings BV and Alder Capital Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: Word mark ALDER CAPITAL for services in Class 36 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Alder Capital Ltd Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Gimv Nederland BV Trade mark of the party seeking cancellation: Benelux trade mark registrations of the word mark Halder and Halder Investments for services in Classes 35 and 36; International registration of the word mark Halder for services in Classes 35 and 36; unregistered trade and company names Halder, Halder Holdings, Halder Investments and Halder Interest used in the course of trade Decision of the Cancellation Division: Community trade mark cancelled Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2011 – Smart Technologies v OHIM (WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH)

(Case T-523/09)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH – 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 33-37, 40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2009 (Case R 554/2009-2), concerning an application for the word sign WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Smart Technologies ULC Community trade mark sought: Word mark WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH for goods in Class 9 – Application No 7355902 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 (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2011 – ReValue Immobilienberatung v OHIM (ReValue)

(Case T-487/09)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community figurative mark ReValue – Application refused in part – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Duty to state reasons – Article 75 of Regulation 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 capable of designating the characteristics of a service (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 58, 69-73)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2009 (Case R 531/2009-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ReValue as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: ReValue Immobilienberatung GmbH Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark ReValue for services in Classes 35, 36, 42 and 45 – Application No 6784292 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused in part Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 25 May 2011 – Prinz von Hannover v OHIM (Representation of a coat of arms)

(Case T-397/09)

Community trade mark – Application for Community figurative mark representing a coat of arms – Absolute ground for refusal – Imitation from a heraldic point of view of the symbol of a State– Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 6ter of the Paris Convention

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks to be refused under the Paris Convention – Protection of emblems of States and international organisations (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(h)) (see paras 24-25,29-30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 (Case R 1361/2008-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing the coat of arms of the house of Hanover.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Ernst August Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark representing coats of arms for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 28, 32, 33, 35, 39, 41 and 43 –Application No 5627245 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 9 September 2011 – Chalk v OHIM – Reformed Spirits Company Holdings (CRAIC)

(Case T-83/09)

Community trade mark – Community word mark CRAIC – Assignments – Registration of the transfer of the mark – Revocation – Articles 16, 17, 23 and 77a of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 16, 17, 23 and 80 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) and Rule 31 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

Community trade mark – Community trade mark as an item of property – Assimilation of the Community trade mark to the national trade mark – Scope of Article 16 of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 16) (see paras 25-27)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2008 (Case R 1888/2007-2) relating to an application for registration of the transfer of a Community trade mark following an assignment.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 July 2011 – Winzer Pharma v OHIM – Alcon (OFTAL CUSI)

(Case T-160/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark OFTAL CUSI – Earlier Community word mark Ophtal – 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 – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – Article 73, first sentence, of Regulation No 40/94 – Scope identical to that of Article 253 EC (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73, first sentence) (see para. 34)

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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 96, 98)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2009 (Case R 1471/2007-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH and Alcon Inc.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dimisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2011 – Honda Motor v OHIM – Blok (BLAST)

(Case T-425/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark BLAST – Earlier Community and Benelux word marks BLAST – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Weak distinctive character of the earlier marks

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 31-32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1097/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Hendrik Blok and Honda Motor Co. Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 September 2011 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-86/09)

Public service contracts – Tendering procedure – Provision of computer and related services, including the maintenance and development of the information systems of the Commission Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries – Rejection of a tender – Obligation to state reasons – Equal treatment – Transparency – Award criteria – Conflict of interests – Manifest error of assessment – Non-contractual liability

1. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision, in a tendering procedure for a public service contract, not to accept a tender – Obligation to communicate, following a written request, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the tenderer (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 26, 29-32)

2. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Obligation to comply with the principle of equal treatment tenderers – Need to ensure equality of opportunity and comply with the principle of transparency – Disparity in information communicated to tenderers, to the benefit of the established contractor – Information neither necessary nor useful for the formulation of tenders – No infringement of the equal treatment principle (see paras 60-63, 65-83)

3. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Power of the institutions in the conduct of the tendering procedure – Conflict of interest between a tenderer and a member of the tender evaluation committee – Concept (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 52(2)) (see paras 100-103)

4. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see para. 123)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 12 December 2008 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in response to Call for Tenders MARE/2008/01 for the provision of computer and related services, including the maintenance and development of the information systems of the Commission’s Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Directorate-General (OJ 2008 S 115) and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer, and an application for damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 – EFIM v Commission

(Case T-296/09)

Competition – Concerted practice – Abuse of a dominant position – Markets for ink cartridges – Decision rejecting a complaint – No Community interest

1. Procedure – Producing evidence – Time-limit – Evidence lodged out of time – Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(1)) (see para. 22)

2. European Union law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions – Specific assurances given by the administration (see para. 30)

3. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Determination of priorities by the Commission – Taking into account the Community interest in investigating a case – Discretion of the Commission – Duty to state reasons for a decision to take no further action – Judicial review – Scope and limits (Arts 81 EC, 82 EC, 85(1) EC and 253 EC; Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Art. 7(2)) (see paras 38-40, 59)

4. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints – Examination of only those elements of fact and law brought to the knowledge of the Commission (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Art. 7(2)) (see para. 41)

5. Competition – Dominant position – Collective dominant position – Concept – Collective entity – Conditions (Art. 82 EC) (see para. 71)

6. Competition – Dominant position – Existence – Large market share – Insufficient evidence (Art. 82 EC) (see para. 79)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C (2009) 4125 of 20 May 2009 rejecting complaint COMP/C‑3/39.391 concerning purported infringements of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by Hewlett‑Packard, Lexmark, Canon and Epson in the market for ink cartridges.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 31 January 2012 – Spar v OHIM – Spa Group Europe (SPA GROUP)

(Case T-378/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community word mark SPA GROUP – Earlier national figurative marks SPAR – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity between the signs – Article 8(1)(b) 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 24-25, 54, 69-74)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 123/2008-1) in relation to opposition proceedings between Spar Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Spa Group Europe Ltd & Co. KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 June 2012 — Biofrescos v Commission



(Case T-159/09)

Customs union — Frozen shrimps and prawns from Indonesia — Invalid certificates of origin — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Application for remission of import duties — Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92

1. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import duties — Article 236 of Regulation No 2913/92 — Scope — Limits — Application of substantive customs law — Exclusive competence of the national authorities (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 236) (see paras 10-12)

2. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import duties — Infringement of Article 220(2) of the Community Customs Code — None (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b)) (see paras 13-22)

3. Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import duties — Fairness clause established by Article 239 of the Community Customs Code — Scope — Commission’s power of decision — Procedures for exercise — ‘Special situation’ — Meaning (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239) (see paras 26-28)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 37, 38)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 72 final of 16 January 2009 finding that there should be post-clearance recovery of import duties and that remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;