ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 8 September 2010 – Icebreaker v OHIM – Gilmar (ICEBREAKER)

(Case T-112/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark ICEBREAKER – Earlier national word mark ICEBERG – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Partial refusal to register – 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 22, 48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 January 2009 (Case R 1536/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Gilmar SpA and Icebreaker Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Icebreaker Ltd Community trade mark sought: Word mark ICEBREAKER for goods in Classes 9, 24 and 25 – Application No 3205523 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Gilmar SpA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian trade mark registration of the word mark ICEBERG for goods in Class 25; international trade mark registration of the word mark ICEBERG for goods in Class 25; Spanish trade mark registration of the word mark ICEBERG for goods in Class 25; Italian trade mark registration of the word mark ICE for goods in Class 25; international trade mark registration of the word mark ICE for goods in Class 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially 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 9 December 2010 – Fédération internationale des logis v OHIM (Green convex square)

(Case T-282/09)

Community trade mark – Application for a Community figurative trade mark representing a green convex square – 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 any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 27-30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2009 (Case R 1511/2008-1) concerning an application for registration of a green convex square as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Fédération internationale des logis Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark representing a green square for goods and services in Classes 3, 18, 24, 43 and 44 – Application No 6468789 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 (Seventh Chamber) of 27 October 2010 – Michalakopoulou Ktimatiki Touristiki v OHIM – Free (FREE)

(Case T-365/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark FREE – Earlier national word mark FREE and earlier national figurative mark free LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

1. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Death of a natural person or cessation of existence of a legal person addressee of a decision of a Community institution – Action for annulment capable of being pursued and right to bring an action capable of being exercised by successor to assets and liabilities (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 20-21)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – Decision upholding the opposition without taking into account all the grounds relied upon (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 23-25)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 43-44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2009 (Case R 1346/2008‑1) relating to opposition proceedings between Free SAS and Eidikes Ekdoseis AE.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Michalakopoulou Ktimatiki Touristiki AE Community trade mark sought: Word mark FREE for goods in Class 16 – Application No 3426442 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Free SAS Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark registration of the word mark FREE for services in Class 38; French trade mark registration of the figurative mark free ‑ LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX for services in Classes 35 and 38 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled; Community trade mark application dismissed in its entirety





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 January 2011 – Häfele v OHIM – Topcom Europe (Topcom)

(Case T-336/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark Topcom – Earlier Community and Benelux word marks TOPCOM – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the goods – 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 25-26, 42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 June 2009 (Case R 1500/2008-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Topcom Europe NV and Häfele GmbH & Co. KG.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Häfele GmbH & Co. KG Community trade mark sought: Word mark Topcom for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11 – Application No 5032149 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Topcom Europe NV Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and Benelux trade mark registration of the word mark TOPCOM for goods in Class 9 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld, opposition allowed and decision of the Opposition Division annulled





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2011 – Visti Beheer v OHIM – Meister (GOLD MEISTER)

(Case T-372/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for figurative Community trade mark GOLD MEISTER – Earlier national and Community trade marks MEISTER – 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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21-24, 37-38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2009 (Case R 1465/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Meister & Co. AG and Visti Beheer BV.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Visti Beheer BV Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark GOLD MEISTER in respect of goods and services in Classes 3, 14, 16, 35, 37, 40 and 42 – Application No 5243209 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Meister & Co. AG Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark No 39534716 and the Community mark No 2607737 MEISTER for goods in Class 14, whereas the opposition is directed solely against the registration for goods in that Class Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Visti Beheer BV to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by OHIM;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 – Jager & Polacek v OHIM (REDTUBE)

(Case T-488/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark REDTUBE – Earlier unregistered national mark Redtube – Failure to pay the opposition fee within the prescribed period – Decision deeming the opposition non-existent – Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 – Protection of legitimate expectations – Rule 17 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Ex parte proceedings – Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 – Rule 18 of Regulation No 2868/95 – Legal nature of a communication from OHIM informing a party that an opposition has been found to be admissible – Rule of parallelism of procedural requirements and of the actus contrarius – Article 80 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Registration procedure – Observation of third parties and opposition – Failure to pay opposition fee (Commission Regulation No 2869/95, Arts 8(3) and 8(4)) (see paras 38-41, 44-49)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2009 (Case R 442/2009-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Jager & Polacek GmbH and RT Mediasolutions s.r.o.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: RT Mediasolutions s.r.o. Community trade mark sought: Word mark REDTUBE for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 41 – Application No 6096309 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Jager & Polacek GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: Non-registered trade mark Redtube Decision of the Opposition Division: The notice of opposition is deemed not to have been entered Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2011 – TTNB v OHIM – March Juan (Tila March)

(Case T-433/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark Tila March – Earlier national figurative mark CARMEN MARCH – 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 22-23, 60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 August 2009 (Case R 1538/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Carmen March Juan and TTNB.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Tamara Taichman, succeeded by the applicant, TTNB Community trade mark sought: Word mark Tila March for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 – Application No 5402722 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Carmen March Juan Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark CARMEN MARCH for goods and services in Classes 3, 18, 24, 25, 35 and 38, the opposition being brought against registration of goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2011 – ATB Norte v OHIM – Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER)

(Case T-475/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark BRICO CENTER – Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro – 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 25, 33-34, 57, 66-67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 (Case R 500/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bricocenter Italia Srl Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark BRICO CENTER in respect of services in Class 35 – Application No 4934212 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Earlier figurative Community trade marks containing the word elements ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro (No 989046) and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro (No 3262623) in respect of services in Classes 35, 37 and 39 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled; opposition dismissed in its entirety





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 500/2008-4) 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;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2011 – ATB Norte v OHIM – Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER)

(Case T-478/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark BRICO CENTER – Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro – 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 25, 33-34, 57, 66-67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 (Case R 1009/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bricocenter Italia Srl Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark BRICO CENTER in respect of services in Class 35 – Application No 4934501 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Earlier figurative Community trade marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro (No 989046) and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro (No 3262623) in respect of services in Classes 35, 37 and 39 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled; opposition dismissed in its entirety





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 1009/2008-4) 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;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2011 – Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg v OHIM – British-American Tobacco Polska (Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg)

(Case T-271/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg – Earlier national word mark JAN III SOBIESKI and earlier national figurative mark JAN III Sobieski – Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the application fee or to do so by bank transfer within the period prescribed – Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring the action to be unfounded – Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 – Application for restitutio in integrum – Lack of exceptional or unforeseeable circumstances – Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Time-limit and form of appeal – Payment of the application fee after the deadline (Commission Regulation No 2869/95, Art. 8(3)) (see paras 37-43)

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Restitutio in integrum – Conditions – Vigilance required by the circumstances – Exceptional, and thus unforeseeable, events – Concept (Council Regulation No 207/09, Art. 81(1)) (see paras 53-54, 60-62)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2009 (Case R 771/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between British-American Tobacco Polska S.A. and Romuald Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011 – Deutsche Bahn v OHIM – DSB (IC4)

(Case T-274/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark IC4 – Earlier Community word mark ICE and earlier national figurative mark IC – Criteria for assessing likelihood of confusion – Relative grounds for refusal – Similarity of the services – Similarity of the signs – Distinctive character of the earlier mark – 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 100-101)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2009 (Case R 1380/2007‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Bahn AG and DSB.

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 30 April 2009 (Case R 1380/2007-1) and the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 26 July 2007;

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Deutsche Bahn AG for the purposes of the present court proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October 2011 – Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke v OHIM – Koninklijke BAM Groep (bam)

(Case T-426/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark BAM – Earlier national figurative mark BAM – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – No similarity of the goods – 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 61-62)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 August 2009 (Case R 1005/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke GmbH & Co. KG für Straßenbaustoffe and Koninklijke BAM Groep NV.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 September 2011 – New Yorker SHK Jeans v OHIM – Vallis K. – Vallis A. (FISHBONE)

(Case T-415/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for registration of the Community word mark FISHBONE – Earlier national figurative mark FISHBONE BEACHWEAR – Relative ground for refusal – Partial refusal of registration – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Consideration of additional evidence – Statement of reasons – Proof of genuine use – Likelihood of confusion – Article 42(2) and (3) and Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Second sentence of Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 – First subparagraph and second subparagraph, heading (a), of Article 15(1) and Article 42(2), (3) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

1. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Time-limit set by the Office – Submission of additional evidence after expiry of the time-limit where there are new factors – Lawfulness (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(1)) (see paras 27, 31)

2. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/09, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 51-53)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/09, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 87, 94, 97)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 July 2009 (Case R 1051/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Vallis K. – Vallis A. & Co. OE and New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 1 February 2012 —

mtronix v OHIM — Growth Finance (mtronix)



(Case T‑353/09)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark mtronix — Earlier Community word mark Montronix — 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 28, 49‑52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2009 (Case R 1557/2007‑4) concerning opposition proceedings between Growth Finance AG and mtronix OHG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;