ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 27, 46-48

)

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega 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 19-20, 59

)

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 February 2010 (Case R 924/2008-4) in so far as the Board of Appeal excluded the goods in Class 3 corresponding to the description ‘Perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices’ from its analysis of the likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders El Corte Inglés, SA, OHIM and Mr Azzedine Alaïa each to bear their own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Own resources of the European Union – Customs destinations – Release for free circulation – Tariff quota management – Tariff quota opening on a Sunday, closing day of the customs offices in a Member State, and exhausted the same day – Exclusion from the tariff quota thus exhausted, of an operator established in that Member State – Lawfulness (Council Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, Art. 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 214/2007, Arts 308a to 308c) (see paras 27-28)

2. Own resources of the European Union – Customs destinations – Release for free circulation – Tariff quota management – Exclusion of an EU importer from a tariff quota opened on a Sunday, by reason of the Sunday closing of customs offices in the Member State of that importer – Infringement by the Commission of the obligation to make necessary legislative provisions to ensure equal and non-discriminatory access to the tariff quota – None (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 20 and 21; Council Regulations No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, Arts 247 and 247a, and No 975/2003, Art. 7; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 214/2007, Arts 308a to 308c) (see paras 30-32, 35-38, 43-45)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10005 final of 16 December 2009 finding no justification for repayment to the applicant of import duties on cans of tuna originating in Thailand.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Saupiquet to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 January 2012 — Viaguara v OHIM — Pfizer (VIAGUARA)

(Case T-332/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ‘VIAGUARA’ — Earlier Community word mark VIAGRA — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 30, 42, 53, 79)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 946/2009-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Pfizer Inc. and Viaguara S.A.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Viaguara S.A. to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 January 2012 — Viaguara v OHIM — Pfizer (VIAGUARA)

(Case T-332/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ‘VIAGUARA’ — Earlier Community word mark VIAGRA — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 30, 42, 53, 79)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 946/2009-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Pfizer Inc. and Viaguara S.A.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords



Keywords

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 15-20

)
In order to determine an ‘advantage’ within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC in the case of a capital injection, it must be assessed whether, in similar circumstances, a private investor of a dimension comparable to that of a public authority could have been prevailed upon to make capital contributions of the same size, having regard in particular to the information available and foreseeable developments at the date of those contributions. In order to examine whether or not the State has adopted the conduct of a prudent investor operating in a market economy, it is necessary to place oneself in the context of the period during which the financial support measures were taken and to refrain from any assessment based on a later situation.

Such principles apply on the assumption that, having decided to subscribe to capital issued by an undertaking subject to certain repayment terms, the State agrees to amend those terms. In such circumstances, State aid may have been granted both on the making of the capital contribution and on the amendment to the repayment terms.

As regards the Commission’s analysis of the economic rationality of the behaviour of the State, the Commission cannot evade its obligation to assess the economic rationality of the amendment to the repayment terms in the light of the private investor principle solely on the ground that the capital injection subject to repayment already itself constitutes State aid. It is only after such an assessment, an assessment which presupposed in particular a comparison of the initial repayment terms with the amended terms, that the Commission is in a position to conclude whether an additional advantage within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC has been granted.

For the purposes of that examination, the Commission was bound to take into account all the relevant information and, in particular, that concerning the initial repayment terms and the amended terms. In that context, an approach, which limits itself to finding that the amendment to the capital injection repayment terms constituted State aid without first examining whether the amendment conferred an advantage to which a private investor placed in the same situation as the State would not have agreed, cannot suffice for the classification as aid pursuant to Article 87(1) EC. Such an approach cannot completely disregard both the option — and not the right — of the State to be repaid on the basis of the initial terms, and the economic rationality which may explain the amendment that was made.

Consequently, the Commission misinterpreted the concept of aid by not assessing whether, by accepting the amendment to the repayment terms, the State acted as a private investor would have done in a similar situation, inter alia because the State could have been repaid early and because when the amendment occurred it obtained a greater certainty of being repaid in a satisfactory manner taking the existing market conditions into account.

(see paras 97-99, 110-111, 118, 125)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 February 2012 — Hartmann-Lamboy v OHIM — Diptyque (DYNIQUE)

(Case T-305/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DYNIQUE — Earlier Community word mark DIPTYQUE — 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, 33-35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2010 (Case R 1217/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Diptyque SAS and Ms Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 February 2012 — Hartmann-Lamboy v OHIM — Diptyque (DYNIQUE)

(Case T-305/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DYNIQUE — Earlier Community word mark DIPTYQUE — 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, 33-35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2010 (Case R 1217/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Diptyque SAS and Ms Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — You-Q v OHIM – Apple Corps (BEATLE)

(Case T-369/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BEATLE — Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks BEATLES and THE BEATLES — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 34-35, 45, 60, 74)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 May 2010 (Case R 1276/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Apple Corps Ltd and Movingpeople.net International BV.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders You-Q BV to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — You-Q v OHIM – Apple Corps (BEATLE)

(Case T-369/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BEATLE — Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks BEATLES and THE BEATLES — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 34-35, 45, 60, 74)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 May 2010 (Case R 1276/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Apple Corps Ltd and Movingpeople.net International BV.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 56‑58

)
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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 41, 47-54

)
Article 277 TFEU expresses a general principle conferring upon any party to proceedings the right to challenge, for the purpose of obtaining the annulment of a decision addressed to that party or which is of direct and individual concern to it, the validity of previous acts of the institutions which, although they are not in the form of a regulation, form the legal basis of the decision under challenge, if that party was not entitled under Article 263 TFEU to bring a direct action challenging those acts by which it was thus affected without having been in a position to ask that they be declared void. Since Article 277 TFEU is not intended to enable a party to contest the applicability of any measure of general application in support of any action whatsoever, the general measure claimed to be illegal must be applicable, directly or indirectly, to the issue with which the action is concerned and there must be a direct legal connection between the contested individual decision and the general measure in question.

So far as concerns the Commission Notice on immunity of fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases, it must be observed (i) that the Commission lays down therein, in a general and abstract manner, the conditions which undertakings must meet in order to receive a total or partial reduction in the amount of fines in respect of infringements of Article 101 TFEU (points 8 to 27 of the 2002 Leniency Notice) and (ii) that that notice creates legitimate expectations on the part of undertakings. While it is true that the Commission does not adopt decisions finding a breach of the competition rules on the basis of the 2002 Leniency Notice, since such decisions are based on Article 7 of Regulation No 1/2003, a direct legal connection may none the less exist between such decisions and the general act constituted by the Leniency Notice. That is in particular the case where, on the basis of applications for reduction made by competitors under the Leniency Notice, the Commission receives information enabling it to carry out inspections and gather information and evidence leading it to adopt its decision.

Since an undertaking is not in a position to ask that the 2002 Leniency Notice, as a general measure, be declared void, the notice may form the subject-matter of a plea of illegality.

(see paras 48-52)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Seikoh Giken v OHIM — Seiko Holdings (SG SEIKOH GIKEN)

(Case T-519/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration — Application for territorial extension of the protection — Figurative mark SG SEIKOH GIKEN — Earlier Community word mark SEIKO — 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 — Figurative mark SG SEIKOH GIKEN and verbal mark SEIKO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 40)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 August 2010 (Case R 1553/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Seiko Holdings Kabushiki Kaisha and Kabushiki Kaisha Seikoh Giken.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 20, 24, 50-56

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2010 (Case R 738/2009-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Intermar Simanto Nahmias and Nike International Ltd.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nike International Ltd to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2012 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-407/10)

‛Structural funds — Financial assistance — Budapest-Kelenföld-Székesfehérvár-Boba railway line — VAT — Non-eligible expenditure’

1. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — EU financing — Cohesion fund — Eligible expenses — Non-recoverable VAT — Concept to be determined in accordance with the rules specific to each fund and not in accordance with national law — Regulation No 1084/2006 — Concept referring to the facility of the beneficiary to deduct that tax (Council Regulations No 1083/2006, Art. 56(4) and No 1084/2006, Art. 3(e)) (see paras 32-35, 53)

2. European Union law — Texts in several languages — Uniform interpretation — Divergence between language versions — General scheme and purpose of the rules in question as a reference point (see paras 39-40)

Re:

ACTION for annulment brought against the Commission Decision of 8 July 2010 relating to the major project for ‘Reconstruction of the Budapest-Kelenföld-Székesfehérvár-Boba railway line, section 1, phase 1’ forming part of the ‘Transport’ operational programme for structural support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CCI 2008HU161PR015).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2012 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-407/10)

‛Structural funds — Financial assistance — Budapest-Kelenföld-Székesfehérvár-Boba railway line — VAT — Non-eligible expenditure’

1. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — EU financing — Cohesion fund — Eligible expenses — Non-recoverable VAT — Concept to be determined in accordance with the rules specific to each fund and not in accordance with national law — Regulation No 1084/2006 — Concept referring to the facility of the beneficiary to deduct that tax (Council Regulations No 1083/2006, Art. 56(4) and No 1084/2006, Art. 3(e)) (see paras 32-35, 53)

2. European Union law — Texts in several languages — Uniform interpretation — Divergence between language versions — General scheme and purpose of the rules in question as a reference point (see paras 39-40)

Re:

ACTION for annulment brought against the Commission Decision of 8 July 2010 relating to the major project for ‘Reconstruction of the Budapest-Kelenföld-Székesfehérvár-Boba railway line, section 1, phase 1’ forming part of the ‘Transport’ operational programme for structural support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CCI 2008HU161PR015).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Similar requirements for claims invoked in support of a plea (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 22)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 27)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative marks FARMASUL and MANASUL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 59, 74, 87)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36-39)

6. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — High distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 60, 61)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2010 (Case R 1034/2009-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Manasul Internacional, SL and Biodes, SL.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Biodes, SL to pay the costs.