ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 10 October 2008 – Imperial Chemical Industries v OHIM (LIGHT & SPACE)

(Case T-224/07)

Community trade mark – Application for registration of Community word mark LIGHT & SPACE – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23-29, 33-34, 36-40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 March 2007 (Case R 1631/2006-1) concerning registration of the sign LIGHT & SPACE as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Imperial Chemical Industries plc Community trade mark sought: Word mark LIGHT & SPACE for goods in Class 2 – Application No 5147756 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 Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2009 – Hansgrohe v OHIM (AIRSHOWER)

(Case T-307/07)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark AIRSHOWER – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 24, 37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 May 2007 (Case R 1281/2006-1) concerning the registration of the word mark ‘AIRSHOWER’ as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Hansgrohe AG Community trade mark sought: Word mark AIRSHOWER for goods in Class 11 – Application No 4869319 Decision of the examiner : Registration partially refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 18 December 2008 – Torres v OHIM – Gala-Salvador Dalí (TG Torre Galatea)

(Case T-8/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community figurative mark TG Torre Galatea – Earlier Community word mark TORRES 10 – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion

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 43, 71)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 October 2006 (Case R 168/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Fundacion Gala-Salvador Dalí.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Fundación Gala-Salvador Dalí Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark TG Torre Galatea for goods in Class 33 – Application No 2730513 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Miguel Torres, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark TORRES 10 for goods in Class 33 (Application No 466896), and various other Community, national and international marks Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration of the mark refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed, contested decision set aside and opposition dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 25 March 2009 – L’Oréal v OHIM – Spa Monopole (SPALINE)

(Case T-21/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark SPALINE – Earlier national word mark SPA – Relative ground for refusal – Damage to reputation – Unfair advantage derived from the reputation of the earlier mark – Use of the mark applied for without due cause – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 21, 24-25, 35-36, 40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2006 (Case R 415/2005-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and L’Oréal SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: L’Oréal SA Community trade mark sought: Community mark SPALINE for goods in Class 3 – Application No 989236 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and international word marks SPA, LIP SPA, SPA SKIN CARE and Les Thermes de Spa for goods in Classes 3, 32 and 42. Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)

24 April 2009

Case T-492/07 P

Carlos Sanchez Ferriz and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2005 promotion year – Non-inclusion on the list of promoted officials – Multiplication rates for guidance purposes – Articles 6 and 10 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations – Legal interest in raising a plea)

Appeal: brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2007 in Case F-115/06 Sanchez Ferriz and Others v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking annulment of that order.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Carlos Sanchez Ferriz and the nine other Commission officials whose names appear in the annex to the order are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in the present proceedings.

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action brought against a refusal of promotion

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Decision adopting the list of promoted officials – Implied decisions not to promote officials other than the appellant – Not included

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1. In order to prove his interest in obtaining annulment of the implied decision not to promote him in the contested promotion exercise, on the ground that the promotion rate allegedly applicable in the grade concerned was not observed, it is for an official to show that, taking account of his personal situation and, in particular, the total number of promotion points he had accumulated, it is not impossible that he might have reached the promotion threshold if the abovementioned promotion rate had been applied.

(see para. 34)

See: T‑436/04 Sanchez Ferriz v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑277 and II‑A‑2‑1439, paras 33 to 37 and 39; T-415/04 Tebaldi and Others v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000, paras 29 to 32

2. While it is true that the effects of the appointing authority’s decision adopting the list of officials promoted in a promotion exercise do not cease when that exercise is concluded, in so far as an official may find himself in competition, in subsequent promotion exercises, with a number of officials who might already have been promoted in that promotion exercise if the appointing authority had applied a higher promotion rate, the fact remains that the implied decisions not to promote those other officials under that promotion exercise cannot be regarded as acts adversely affecting that official.

(see para. 38)

See: T‑311/04 Buendía Sierra v Commission [2006] ECR II‑4137, para. 349
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 – Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe v OHIM – Byass (ALFONSO)

(Case T-291/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark ALFONSO – Earlier Community and national word marks PRINCIPE ALFONSO – 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) – Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal – Obligation to rule on the entirety of the action – Article 62(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28-30, 53-61)

2. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Decision on the appeal – Obligation of the Board of Appeal – Scope – Appeal not ruled upon in its entirety (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 62(1)) (see para. 62)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1110/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe, SA and González Byass, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: González Byass, SA Community trade mark sought: Word mark ALFONSO for goods in Classes 30, 32 and 33 – Application No 3398278 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national word marks PRÍNCIPE ALFONSO for goods in Class 33 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition in relation to ‘sherries’ (Class 33) upheld and application for registration for those goods refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld





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 29 May 2007 (Case R 1110/2006-2);
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2009 – El Morabit v Council

(Joined Cases T-37/07 and T-323/07)

Common Foreign and Security Policy – Restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism – Freezing of funds – List of persons, groups and entities – Action for annulment

1. Community law – Principles – Fundamental rights – Presumption of innocence – Decision to freeze funds, on a preventive basis, against a person suspected of terrorist activities – Compatibility with that principle – Conditions (Council Common Position 2001/931, Art. 1(4); Council Regulation No 2580/2001, Art. 2(3)) (see paras 40-47)

2. Community law – Principles – Fundamental rights – Restrictions on the exercise of fundamental rights justified in the public interest – Fight against threats to international peace and security (Council Common Position 2001/931, Art. 1(4); Council Regulation No 2580/2001) (see paras 52, 59-63)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment, in part, of, first, Council Decision 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC (OJ 2007 L 169 , : p. 58) and, second, Council Decision 2006/1008/EC of 21 December 2006 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2006 L 379, p. 123), in so far as the name of the applicant appears on the lists of persons, groups and entities to which those provisions apply.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Mr Mohamed El Morabit to bear his own costs and pay those of the Council;
APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 355, p. 96) in so far as it relates to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and more particularly with regard to the financial correction applied to the reimbursement of ineligible expenditure in the framework of the EAGGF, Guarantee Section, for the year 2002 in the amount of EUR 5.67 million.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 March 2010 – Mirto Corporación Empresarial v OHIM – Maglificio Barbara (Mirtillino)

(Case T-427/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark Mirtillino – Earlier Community word mark MIRTO – 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)

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 40‑42, 81)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 August 2007 (Case R 875/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Creaciones Mirto SA and Maglificio Barbara Srl.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Maglificio Barbara Srl Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Mirtillino for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 – application No 3252467 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Creaciones Mirto, SA; the applicant following transfer of the marks at issue in the opposition proceedings Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark MIRTO (Community trade mark No 1653351) for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 and various other national word and figurative marks MIRTO Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partly upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision under appeal and dismissal of the opposition





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 February 2010 – Enercon v OHIM – Hasbro (ENERCON)

(Case T-472/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark ENERCON – Earlier Community word mark TRANSFORMERS ENERGON – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 44-45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 October 2007 (Case R 959/2006‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between Hasbro, Inc. and Enercon GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Enercon GmbH Community trade mark sought: The Community word mark ENERCON for goods in Classes 16, 18, 24, 25, 28 and 32 – Application No 3326031 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Hasbro, Inc. Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Community word mark TRANSFORMERS ENERGON for goods in Classes 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 30 and 32 – Application No 315121 and earlier unregistered marks TRANSFORMERS ENERGON and ENERGON Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Operative part

The Court:

1.Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 – Italy v Commission

(Case T-205/07)

Rules on the use of languages – Publication on EPSO’s website of a call for expressions of interest to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contractual agents – Publication in three official languages – Articles 12 EC and 290 EC – Article 82 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants – Regulation No 1

1. European Union – Rules on languages – Regulation No 1 – Scope – Relations between the institutions and their staff – Not included (Council Regulation No 1) (see paras 30-33)

2. European Union – Rules on languages – No general principle giving each citizen the right to have any measure capable of affecting his interests drafted in his own language (Arts 290 EC and 314 EC; Council Regulation No 1) (see para. 50)

3. Officials – Contractual agents – Recruitment – Call for expressions of interest to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contractual agents – Publication on the site of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) only in certain official languages – Obligation to adopt measures allowing all potential candidates to become aware of the existence and content of the call – Candidates having sufficient mastery of at least one of the languages of publication – Discrimination based on language – None – Candidates having only knowledge of other official languages – Discrimination based on language (Art. 12 EC; Conditions of Employment of other Servants, Art. 82(1)) (see paras 52-54, 58-59, 63-64)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Call for expressions of interest EPSO/CAST/EU/27/07 to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contractual agents carrying out various activities within the European institutions and agencies, published on the website of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) on 27 March 2007.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Call for expressions of interest EPSO/CAST/EU/27/07 to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contractual agents carrying out various activities within the European institutions and agencies, published on the website of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) on 27 March 2007;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 – Spain v Commission

(Joined Cases T-156/07 and T-232/07)

Rules on the use of languages – Notice of open competitions for the recruitment of administrators – Publication in all the official languages – Amendments – Regulation No 1 – Articles 27, 28 and Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations – Article 1(1) and (2) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations – Duty to state reasons – Principle of non-discrimination

1. European Communities – Rules on languages – No general principle giving each citizen the right to have any document capable of affecting his interests drafted in his own language (Council Regulation No 1) (see paras 53-54)

2. European Communities – Rules on languages – Regulation No 1 – Scope (Council Regulation No 1) (see paras 54-56)

3. Officials – Competitions – Notice of competition – Publication in the Official Journal only in certain official languages (see paras 61-69)

4. Officials – Competitions – Notice of competition – Full publication in the Official Journal only in certain official languages (see paras 80-85)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, first, of the Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/94/07 to constitute a reserve pool of Administrators (AD 5) in the field of information, communication and media (OJ 2007 C 45 A, p. 3) and, second, of the Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/95/07 to constitute a reserve pool of Administrators (AD 5) in the field of information science (library/documentation) (OJ 2007 C 103 A, p. 7).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 22 March 2011 – Ford Motor v OHIM – Alkar Automotive (CA)

(Case T-486/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for figurative Community trade mark CA – Earlier Community word and figurative marks KA – 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)

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 27, 92)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2007 (Case R 85/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ford Motor Company and Alkar Automotive, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Alkar Automotive, SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark CA for, inter alia, goods in Classes 9, 11 and 12 – Application No 3186764 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ford Motor Company Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word and figurative marks KA for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 27, 32 and 37 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected in its entirety Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;