ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

2. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Amendment of a decision by the Office – Assessment in the light of the powers conferred on the Board of Appeal

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 64(1))

Summary

1. For the average French consumer there is no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark between the word sign ANN TAYLOR LOFT, for which registration as a Community mark is sought in respect of leather goods and clothing articles in classes 18 and 25 respectively under the Nice Agreement, and the word mark LOFT, registered earlier in France for identical products.

Notwithstanding the identical nature of the goods at issue, having regard to the existence of a weak similarity between the signs at issue, the target public, accustomed to the same clothing company using sub‑brands that derive from the principal mark, will not be able to establish a connection between the signs ANN TAYLOR LOFT and LOFT, since the earlier mark does not include the ‘ann taylor’ element, which is the most distinctive element in the mark applied for.

(see paras 22, 48)

2. Since the Board of Appeal is itself empowered, under Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, to exercise any power within the competence of the department which was responsible for the decision contested before it, the Court may, in the context of its power to alter decisions, exercise any power within the competence of the lower departments of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), whose decisions are subject to appeal before the Board of Appeal. Accordingly, the Court may, in this context, take a decision that could have been taken by the examiner, the Opposition Division or the Cancellation Division. On the other hand, it may not take decisions that do not fall within the competence of those departments. This is why the Court cannot register a trade mark, as that registration does not come within the competence of the examiner or of the Opposition Division.

(see para. 52)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 8(1)(b) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 30, 60-62

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2009 (Case R 531/2008-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Miguel Bellido SA and Olymp Bezner GmbH & Co. KG.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Olymp Bezner GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 56) (see paras 27, 52, 60

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 886/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Textiles CMG, SA and United States Polo Association.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders United States Polo Association to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 33-34, 57, 66-67

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 (Case R 1006/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

Information relating to the case

>lt>6

Operative part

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 24 September 2009 (Case R 1006/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders ATB Norte, SL, Bricocenter Italia and OHIM each to bear their own costs incurred during the proceedings before the General Court.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark

–

Assessment of the likelihood of confusion

–

Determination of the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37-39

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 June 2009 (Case R 1385/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Acotel SpA and ancotel GmbH.

Information relating to the case

>lt>8

Operative part

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 19 June 2009 (Case R 1385/2008-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by ancotel GmbH;

3. Orders Acotel SpA to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23-24

)

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Meredith Corp. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dimisses the action;

2. Orders Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH to bear its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and of Alcon Inc.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision, in the procedure for awarding a public services contract, to reject a tender – Assessment having regard to the information at the applicant’s disposal at the time the action was brought – Advantages of the successful tender not communicated – Inadequate statement of reasons (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 24-29, 36-43)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Injury/damage – Causal link – Annulment, for lack of reasoning, of a Council decision rejecting a tender in a public service contract procedure – Reality of the unlawfulness and the causal link depending on examination of pleas having to be directed against the decision replacing the annulled decision – Claim for compensation premature (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 45-53)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for annulment of the Council’s decision of 1 December 2008 to reject the tender submitted by the Alfastar-Siemens consortium, composed of Alfastar Benelux SA and Siemens IT Solutions and Services SA, in response to Call for Tenders UCA/218/07 for the provision of technical maintenance – help desk and on-site intervention services for the PCs, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council (OJ 2008/S 91‑122796) and to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, for damages.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the Council’s decision of 1 December 2008 to reject the tender submitted by the consortium composed of Alfastar Benelux SA and Siemens IT Solutions and Services SA, in response to Call for Tenders UCA/218/07 for the provision of technical maintenance – help desk and on-site intervention services for the PCs, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council and to award the contract to another tenderer;

2. Dismisses the claim for damages;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision to give no further consideration to a tenderer in the award procedure for a public service contract – Assessment having regard to information at the applicant’s disposal at the time the action was brought – No infringement of the duty to state reasons (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(2) and (3)) (see paras 27-31, 54)

2. European Union public contracts – Tender procedure – Award of contracts – Principle of equal treatment of tenderers – Scope (Art. 18 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 89(1)) (see para. 73)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of those conditions lacking – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 100-103)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for annulment of two Commission decisions, communicated in two separate letters of 12 May 2009 ranking the applicant, for its tenders in response to the open call for tenders EAC/01/2008 for external service provision for educational programmes (ESP-ISEP) (OJ 2008/S 158-212752), for Lot No 1 (IS (information system) Development and Maintenance) and for Lot No 2 (IS (information system) Studies, Testing, Training and Support), as second contractor for each of those lots and, secondly, for damages.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Appeals procedure

–

Appeal brought against a decision of the Opposition Division of the Office

–

Examination by Board of Appeal

–

Scope

–

Evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the prescribed time-limit

–

Account taken

–

Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Arts 20(1) and 50(1)) (see paras 31-33, 37-42

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2009 (Case R 1661/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Bernhard Rintisch and Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Union – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual – Scope – Obligation to assess in conformity with EU legislation on the protection of personal data – Full applicability of the provisions of Regulation No 45/2001 for any request for access to documents containing personal data (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 45/2001, Art. 8, and No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b)) (see paras 21-26, 38-40)

2. Approximation of laws – Protection of physical persons in relation to processing of personal data – Processing of those data by institutions and bodies of the Union – Request for access to documents mentioning the names of Members of the European Parliament affiliated to the additional pension scheme – Personal data – Request for access to those documents pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 – Obligation to establish the need for transfer of those data (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 45/2001, Arts 2(a), 5(b) and 8(b), and No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b)) (see paras 27-30)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Decision A(2008) 22050 of the European Parliament of 17 December 2008 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents relating to the affiliation of certain Members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Gert-Jan Dennekamp to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear their own costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark

—

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

—

Relative grounds for refusal

—

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

—

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40-42, 117-118, 127, 131-135

)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 February 2012 — skytron energy v OHIM (arraybox)

(Case T-321/09)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark arraybox — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (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 20-22, 36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2009 (Case R 1680/2008-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign arraybox as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders skytron energy GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 February 2012 — skytron energy v OHIM (arraybox)

(Case T-321/09)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark arraybox — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (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 20-22, 36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2009 (Case R 1680/2008-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign arraybox as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
It is clear from Article 2(e), Article 9(1) and Article 17(2) and (3) of Decision 2001/431, on a financial contribution by the Community to certain expenditure incurred by the Member States in implementing the control, inspection and surveillance systems applicable to the common fisheries policy, that a financial contribution by the Union for the acquisition of vessels which are actually used for the control and surveillance of fishing activities is possible, under that decision, only if the expenditure is incurred in accordance with the conditions laid down by that decision and by the directives concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public contracts, including Directive 93/36 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts. It follows that Decision 2001/431, and in particular Article 17(2) thereof, must be regarded as requiring that co-financing by the Union presupposes the applicability ratione materiae of those directives.

The inherent purpose of the requirement to comply with the conditions laid down by the directives concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public contracts is primarily to ensure that purchase operations co-financed by the Union are fully transparent and fully controllable. In addition, co-financing by the Union of warships does not, in principle, fall within the common fisheries policy. Thus, under Decision 2001/431, it is not permissible for a Member State to request, on the one hand, co-financing by the Union for the acquisition of vessels wholly or partly intended for the purposes of control and surveillance of fishing activities which, in accordance with that decision, must comply with the rules on the award of public contracts and to decide, on the other hand, not to apply those rules by relying on Article 296(1)(b) EC, on account of the military nature of the equipment acquired. However, Article 296(1)(b) EC does not prevent the Member States which intend to acquire military equipment falling within the scope of that provision from deciding nonetheless to comply with the common procedures for the award of public contracts and, accordingly, from being able to claim the financial contribution provided for in Decision 2001/431.

(see paras 38-40, 42, 45)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — Kavaklidere-Europe v OHIM — Yakult Honsha (Yakut)

(Case T-276/09)

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

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

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark Yakut and figurative mark Yakult (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 56, 57)

Re:

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

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2012 — Denmark v Commission

(Case T-212/09)

‛EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Arable crops — Setting aside of land’

1. Procedure — Measures of organisation of procedure — Request for production of documents — Discretion of the General Court (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 46(1)(d)) (see para. 24)

2. Union law — Interpretation — Methods (see para. 29)

3. Agriculture — EAGGF — Grant of aids and premiums — Obligation of Member States to organise an effective system of administrative controls and on-the-spot checks — Unreliable controls — Disallowance by the Fund (Commission Regulations No 3887/92, Art. 6(1), and No 2419/2001, Art. 15) (see paras 39, 40, 160)

4. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof — Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (see paras 57, 58, 150)

5. Union law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Commission not replying to a letter — No infringement (see para. 134)

6. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 139, 140)

7. Union law — Principles — Proportionality — Withdrawal of financial assistance for breach of essential obligations — Lawfulness (see paras 148, 149)

8. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules — Assessment of losses incurred by the Fund — Irregular expenses not capable of sufficiently precise determination — Assessment based on flat-rate corrections — Lawfulness (see para. 152)

Re:

ANNULMENT in part of Commission Decision 2009/253/EC of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2009 L 75, p. 15), in so far as it excludes from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Denmark in respect of the setting aside of land.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;