ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Obligation of the opponent to clearly identify the earlier mark – Scope – Obligation to represent the earlier mark – None

(Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 15(2)(b)(vi) and 18(1))

Summary

Under Rule 18(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 implementing Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, ‘where the notice of opposition does not clearly identify the application against which opposition is entered or the earlier mark or the earlier right on the basis of which the opposition is being entered, the Office shall reject the notice of opposition as inadmissible unless those deficiencies have been remedied before expiry of the opposition period’.

That rule must be interpreted as requiring a sufficiently clear indication of the earlier mark on which the opposition is based to enable it to be identified, before expiry of the opposition period. The indication of the registration number of the mark in question and of the Member State in which it is registered constitutes a clear identification for the purposes of that provision.

On the other hand, it is not possible to infer from Rule 15(2)(b)(vi) of the implementing regulation, concerning the content of the notice of opposition, an obligation to represent the earlier mark in the context of Rule 18(1) of that regulation.

(see paras 42, 46-47, 49)
Keywords

Summary



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

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

Summary

For the average consumer in Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Portugal and the Benelux Countries there is no likelihood of confusion between the word sign ECHINAID, registration of which as a Community trade mark is requested in respect of ‘vitamins, food supplements, herbal preparations, pharmaceutical and medical preparations’ in Class 5 of the Nice Agreement, and the word mark ECHINACIN which was registered earlier as an international mark effective in Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Portugal and the Benelux Countries for ‘chemical pharmaceuticals’ in that same class, in so far as, first, the prefix ‘echin-’ or ‘echina-’ refers, as far as the average consumer is concerned, to the composition of the product rather than to its commercial origin, since the word ‘Echinacea’ is the scientific name in Latin of a plant used for pharmaceutical products and herbal medicine, and, second, the respective suffixes of the signs in conflict, namely ‘-id’ and ‘-cin’, are to be regarded as the distinctive and dominant elements which attract the attention of consumers.

In that regard, the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion must be carried out objectively and cannot be influenced by considerations that are unrelated to the commercial origin of the goods in question such as any harmful consequences linked to the incorrect use of a pharmaceutical product. Those possible consequences result from possible confusion on the part of the consumer as regards the identity or characteristics of the goods at issue and not as regards their commercial origin in the sense of the ground for refusal laid down in Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. In addition, as regards pharmaceutical products, consumers are assisted in their choice by highly qualified professionals, whereas, in relation to herbal medicinal products, consumers are deemed to be reasonably well informed, observant and circumspect, and used to using products whose name contains the prefix ‘echina-’, in such a way that any risk of a mistaken choice and subsequent incorrect use of a product giving rise to certain harmful consequences is compensated for by the high degree of awareness on the part of, and attention paid by, the average consumers concerned.

(see paras 31-33, 45, 55)
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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 56-57

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2003 (Case R 922/2001-2) regarding opposition proceedings between Société des Produits Nestlé SA and Quick restaurants SA

Information relating to the case :

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs in their entirety.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 81(4))

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 81(4))

Summary

1. It is clear from the wording of Article 81(4) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark that the Board of Appeal has a wide discretion in the apportionment of procedural costs in the context of a case which does not proceed to judgment. In such circumstances, the Community Court cannot substitute its assessment for that of the Board of Appeal. Nevertheless, it is for the Community Court to check whether or not, having regard to the considerations which may have led to its assessment, the Board of Appeal exceeded the limits of its discretion and used that discretion in a manifestly wrongful manner.

(see para. 18)

2. Since parallel opposition proceedings are based on different facts, assessment of the likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks in each of those sets of proceedings involves taking into consideration all of the facts and law relied on in each case by the parties. In those circumstances, the fact that an opposition is upheld, although it deprives the parallel proceedings of their purpose, does not in any way make it possible to determine which of the parties to those parallel proceedings would have been unsuccessful. Identification of the unsuccessful party in given proceedings may be based only on the purpose and factual and legal framework of those proceedings, as defined by the parties’ claims. Furthermore, an order pursuant to Article 81(4) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark requiring the applicant for a trade mark for which registration has been refused to pay the costs in all potential parallel proceedings cannot automatically follow from the decision upholding one of the oppositions filed against that application.

(see paras 21-23)
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 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 52-56

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the first Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 May 2004 (Case R 493/2003‑1) regarding registration of a three-dimensional mark consisting of an embossed motif.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant, Georgia-Pacific Sàrl, to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 881/2002, as amended by Regulation No 2049/2003) (see paras 53-58)

2. Public international law – United Nations Charter – Decisions of the Security Council (see para. 92)

3. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions (Council Regulation No 881/2002) (see para. 92)

4. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions (Council Regulation No 881/2002, as amended by Regulation No 561/2003; Commission Regulation No 2049/2003) (see paras 92, 96, 99)

5. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions (Council Regulation No 881/2002, as amended by Regulation No 2049/2003) (see para. 92)

6. Actions for annulment – Community act implementing resolutions of the United Nations Security Council – Regulation No 881/2002 (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 881/2002) (see para. 92)

7. European Communities – Act implementing resolutions of the United Nations Security Council – Regulation No 881/2002 (Art. 6 EU; Council Regulation No 881/2002) (see paras 115-120, 122)

8. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Act implementing resolutions of the United Nations Security Council – Regulations Nos 881/2002 and 2049/2003 (Council Regulation No 881/2002; Commission Regulation No 2049/2003) (see paras 126-128)

9. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 139-140)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2049/2003 of 20 November 2003 amending Regulation No 881/2002 for the 25th time (OJ 2003 L 303, p. 20), and, second, for damages.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 47-65

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2004 (Case R 542/2002-2) in opposition proceedings between Merant GmbH and Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH.

Information relating to the case

>lt>1

Operative part

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 18 October 2004 (Case R 542/2002-2);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, Merant GmbH;

3. Orders the intervener, Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH, to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 33-34)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Cumulative nature – Damage – Causal link – Burden of proof (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 40-41, 50-53)

Subject of the case

Re:

CLAIM for compensation for loss allegedly caused by Commission Decision 2000/513/EC of 8 September 1999 on aid granted by France to the company Stardust Marine.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as unfounded;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Council Regulations Nos 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c) and 1258/1999, Art. 7(4); Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 98, 105, 122-123, 141-143, 213, 217, 248-250)

2. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Regulation prescribing specific control measures (see paras 120, 261)

Subject of the case

Re:

PARTIAL ANNULMENT of Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 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 2004 L 156, p. 48, corrigendum in OJ 2004 L 202, p. 35), inasmuch as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by Spain.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 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 2004 L 156, p. 48, corrigendum in OJ 2004 L 202, p. 35), inasmuch as it excludes expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the Autonomous Communities of the Basque Region and La Rioja in financial year 1998/1999 relating to arable crops and beef premiums, on the one hand, and expenditure incurred before 22 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain in the Autonomous Community of the Basque Region in financial year 1999/2000 relating to arable crops and beef premiums, on the other;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders each party to bear its own 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 – Duty to state reasons – Scope (Art. 253 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see paras 48-49)

2. 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 – Duty to assess in accordance with EU legislation on the protection of personal data (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 45/2001, Arts 1(1) and 2(a) and (b), and No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b)) (see paras 87-89, 91, 95-96, 102)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Reasoning put forward during proceedings not mentioned in the contested decision – Not permissible (Art. 253 EC) (see para. 107)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 10 February 2004 refusing the applicant’s request for access to the reserve list for open competition A7/A6 COM/A/637 and the individual decisions appointing officials in Grade A 6 from 5 October 1995.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 10 February 2004 refusing to give Mr Gregorio Valero Jordana access to the reserve list for open competition A7/A6 COM/A/637 and the individual decisions appointing officials in Grade A 6 from 5 October 1995;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay Mr Valero Jordana’s costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs;

4. Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear his own costs;

5. Removes the Kingdom of Denmark as an intervener in Case T‑161/04;

6. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs;

7. Orders Mr Valero Jordana, the Commission, the Kingdom of Sweden and the EDPS to bear their own costs in regard to the Kingdom of Denmark’s intervention.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 July 2006 –Hassan v Council and Commission

(Case T-49/04)

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – Freezing of funds – Fundamental rights – Jus cogens – Review by the Court – Action for annulment and damages

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 881/2002, as amended by Regulation No 2049/2003) (see paras 53-58)

2. Public international law – United Nations Charter – Decisions of the Security Council (see para. 92)

3. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions (Council Regulation No 881/2002) (see para. 92)

4. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions (Council Regulation No 881/2002, as amended by Regulation No 561/2003; Commission Regulation No 2049/2003) (see paras 92, 96, 99)

5. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions (Council Regulation No 881/2002, as amended by Regulation No 2049/2003) (see para. 92)

6. Actions for annulment – Community act implementing resolutions of the United Nations Security Council – Regulation No 881/2002 (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 881/2002) (see para. 92)

7. European Communities – Act implementing resolutions of the United Nations Security Council – Regulation No 881/2002 (Art. 6 EU; Council Regulation No 881/2002) (see paras 115-120, 122)

8. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Act implementing resolutions of the United Nations Security Council – Regulations Nos 881/2002 and 2049/2003 (Council Regulation No 881/2002; Commission Regulation No 2049/2003) (see paras 126-128)

9. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 139-140)

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2049/2003 of 20 November 2003 amending Regulation No 881/2002 for the 25th time (OJ 2003 L 303, p. 20), and, second, for damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 22 February 2006 − Nestlé v OHIM

(Case T-74/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community figurative trade mark including the word element ‘QUICKY’ – Earlier Community, national and international figurative trade marks including the word element ‘QUICK’ – Earlier national and international word marks ‘QUICK’ – Earlier national word marks ‘QUICKIES’ – Likelihood of confusion – Refusal to register – Article 8(1)(b) 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 56-57)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2003 (Case R 922/2001-2) regarding opposition proceedings between Société des Produits Nestlé SA and Quick restaurants SA

Information relating to the case:

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Société des produits Nestlé SA Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark ‘QUICKY’ – Application No 467 746, lodged for goods in Classes 29 (meats, etc.), 30 (coffee, etc.) and 32 (mineral water, etc.) Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Société anonyme de droit belge Quick restaurants Mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Word and figurative national and international marks, ‘QUICK’ and ‘QUICKIES’ Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the registration Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 – Gagliardi v OHIM – Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (MANŪ MANU MANU)

(Case T‑392/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative trade mark MANŪ MANU MANU – Earlier national word mark MANOU – Refusal to register – Scope and correction of the decision of the Board of Appeal – Restriction of the application for registration – Partial withdrawal of the opposition – Legal interest in bringing opposition proceedings – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Scope of the proof of use – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 43(5), 62(1) and 74(1)) (see paras 43-51)

2. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 81-94)

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 110-127)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2004 (Case R 154/2002-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG and Salvatore Gagliardi.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Salvatore Gagliardi Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark MANŪ MANU MANU for goods in Classes 18, 24 and 25 – Application No 1021690 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG Mark or sign cited in opposition: German Word mark MANOU for goods in Class 25 Decision by the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld; application for registration dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 June 2004 (Case R 154/2002-4) in so far as it refuses the application for registration of the mark MANŪ MANU MANU, first, for ‘footwear’ and ‘headgear’ in Class 25 and second, for goods in Classes 18 and 24;

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and a third of those incurred by the applicant;

Orders the applicant, Salvatore Gagliardi, to bear two thirds of its own costs;
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 – Orsay v OHIM – Jiménez Arellano (Orsay)

(Case T-378/04)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for the word and figurative trade mark Orsay – Earlier national word and figurative trade mark D'ORSAY – Ground for refusal – Risk of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) 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 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 43-45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2004 (Case R 909/2002-4) concerning an opposition procedure between José Jiménez Arellano S.A. and Orsay GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Orsay GmbH Community trade mark sought: Word and figurative mark Orsay for goods in Classes 23, 24 and 25 – Application No 1042605 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: José Jiménez Arellano, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word and figurative mark D’ORSAY Decision of the Opposition Division: Refusal of registration Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;