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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 17, 43)

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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 18)

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 — Word mark FreeLounge — Figurative mark free LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX, word mark FREE, company name FREE and domain name FREE.FR (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27-31, 37)

4. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 38)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 January 2012 (Case R 437/2011‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between Free SAS and Conradi + Kaiser GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 January 2012 (Case R 437/2011‑2) is annulled in so far as it considered that the services for online publication of electronic books and periodicals as well as the services for publication of periodicals and books in electronic form, including on the Internet, falling within Class 41 and covered by the application for registration, were not similar to the services to disseminate information electronically, in particular for Internet-style global communication networks, falling within Class 38 and covered by the earlier figurative mark;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
Case T‑247/12

Argo Group International Holdings Ltd

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ARIS — Earlier Community figurative mark ARISA ASSURANCES S.A. — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Principle of American law known as the ‘Morehouse defense’ — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 20 May 2014

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Clear and precise statement of the grounds relied on (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) 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 — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) 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 ARIS and ARISA ASSURANCES S.A. (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) 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 — Composite mark — Determination of dominant component(s)) (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Examination by the EU judicature — Not permissible to take account of the principle of American law known as the ‘Morehouse defense’ (Council Regulation 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 — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2014 — Pågen Trademark v OHIM (gifflar)

(Case T‑520/12)

‛Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark gifflar — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctiveness — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 15)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16, 17)

3. 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 — Figurative mark gifflar (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 20, 29, 30)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Exception — Distinctive character acquired through use — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(3)) (see paras 34-39, 42, 43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 September 2012 (Case R 46/2012-2), concerning an application for registration of the figurative mark gifflar as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 9992 of 22 December 2011 reducing the assistance from the Cohesion Fund granted to the following projects: ‘Measures to be undertaken to implement the 2nd phase of the master plan for urban solid waste management in the Autonomous Community of Extremadura’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PE.020); Outfall: ‘Middle basin, Getafe and lower basin of the Arroyo del Culebro (Tagus basin — Wastewater drainage)’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.002); ‘Re-use of treated water for the irrigation of green spaces in Santa Cruz de Tenerife’ (CCI No 2003.ES.16.C.PE.003) and ‘Technical assistance for the study and drafting of the project to supply water to the Mancomunidad de Algodor and to increase that supply’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.040);
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 March 2015 — Vestel Iberia and Makro autoservicio mayorista v Commission

(Cases T‑249/12 and T‑269/12)

‛Action for annulment — Customs union — Post-clearance entry in the accounts and remission of import duties — Colour television receivers originating in Turkey — Application for remission of customs duties submitted by two importers — Commission referring the national authorities to a decision concerning another importer — Article 871(2) and (6) and Article 905(2) and (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Commission decision post-clearance entry of import duties in the accounts but not justifying the remission of those duties in a particular case — Application for remission of customs duties — Commission referring the national authorities to a decision concerning another importer — Action by importers subject to the national decision but not the Commission decision — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 74-88)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 22 final of 18 January 2010 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and that remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T‑249/12 and T‑269/12 for the purposes of the present judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions as inadmissible;

3. Orders Vestel Iberia, SL and Makro autoservicio mayorista SA to pay the costs;
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 22 June 2012 (Case R 135/2011-4), in so far as it dismisses the opposition in respect of cosmetic products, falling within Class 3 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;
53

Secondly, it must be stated that in order to assess the potentially selective nature of a fee scale drawn up by a public entity for the use of a product or service in a given sector in relation to certain undertakings, it is necessary, in particular, to refer to all of the undertakings using or able to use that specific product or service and to examine whether only some of them obtain or are able to obtain a potential advantage. The situation of undertakings which do not want to or cannot use the product or service in question is therefore not directly relevant when assessing the existence of an advantage. In other words, the selective nature of a measure consisting of a fee scale drawn up by a public entity for the use of a product or service made available by that entity may be assessed only in relation to current or potential customers of that entity and of the specific product or service in question, and not, in particular, in relation to customers of other undertakings from that sector providing similar products and services. Furthermore, even if it were to be considered that every non-discriminatory fee scale implemented by a public entity in consideration of a given product or service has a selective character, that would, essentially, have the effect of excessively extending the notion of aid ‘favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’ referred to in Article 107(1) TFEU. In addition, in order for a potential advantage, conferred by a public entity in the context of the provision of specific products or services, to favour certain undertakings, it is necessary that the undertakings using or wishing to use that product or that service do not or cannot obtain that advantage from that entity in that particular context.
47

However, subsequent to the delivery of those judgments, the Court of Justice interpreted Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 as meaning that it is open to the institutions to base their decisions in that regard on general presumptions which apply to certain categories of documents, as similar general considerations are likely to apply to requests for disclosure relating to documents of the same nature. That interpretation is required where the legislation governing a procedure also lays down strict rules as regards the treatment of information obtained or established in the course of such procedure (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 June 2012 in Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob, C‑404/10 P, ECR, EU:C:2012:393, paragraphs 108, 116 and 118). That is precisely the position with regard to Articles 27(2) and 28 of Regulation No 1/2003 and Articles 6, 8, 15 and 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles [101 and 102 TFEU] (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18), which apply strict rules to the use of documents in the file relating to a proceedings under Article 101 TFEU (judgment of 27 February 2014 in Commission v EnBW, C‑365/12 P, ECR, EU:C:2014:112, paragraph 86). In that context, to take into account Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 in such a way as to prohibit the Commission from publishing any information on the ground that the Commission is entitled to refuse, pursuant to that Article 4, access to documents in which that information is to be found by relying on a general presumption would render Article 30 of Regulation No 1/2003 meaningless. First, the effect of such an approach would be to deprive the Commission of the possibility of publishing even the main content of its decision, to the extent that that content must necessarily be apparent from the information in the investigation file. Second, the result of that approach would in practice be a reversal of the burden of proof which, as regards confidential treatment, lies on the undertaking which requests such treatment, since it would be sufficient for that undertaking to invoke the general presumption, which the institutions can invoke on the conditions described above, and in fact to oblige the Commission to demonstrate that the information at issue can be included in the published version of its decision. Consequently, the fact that the Commission, when dealing with a request for access to a set of documents described in general terms and to be found in the investigation file, may rely on a general presumption relating to the protection of one of the interests set out in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (see, to that effect, judgment in Commission v EnBW, EU:C:2014:112, paragraphs 65 to 69) can be in no way prejudicial to the scope of the publication which the Commission may undertake under Article 30 of Regulation No 1/2003.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Grounds — Manifest error of assessment — Error with no decisive influence on the result — Invalid plea in law (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 134(3)) (see para. 22)

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 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 30, 31, 44, 45)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Word mark ANNAPURNA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51(1)(a)) (see paras 37, 38, 41, 42, 48, 49, 52-54, 64-69)

4. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Partial use — Effect — Concept of ‘part of goods or services’ concerned by registration (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 62-64)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2012 (Case R 2409/2011-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Anapurna GmbH and Annapurna SpA.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses Annapurna SpA’s application for annulment;

3. Orders Anapurna GmbH to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Annapurna SpA;

4. Orders Annapurna SpA to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Pleas in law not set out in the application — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1), 130(1), and 132(1)) (see paras 16, 17)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU — Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 23, 24)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 47, 57)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public — Pharmaceutical products (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 36)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks METABIOMAX and BIOMAX (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 45, 55, 60)

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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 37)

7. 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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 58, 59)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2012 (Case R 2089/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Glaxo Group Ltd and Ms Sofia Golam.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Sofia Golam 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-21, 60)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 27, 41, 47, 50)

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 — Word mark United Autoglas and figurative mark AUTOGLASS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31-36, 53, 59, 63, 64)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Examination by the Community judicature — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 38)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2013 (Case R 206/2012‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Belron Hungary Kft — Zug Branch and Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2014 —

Urb Rulmenti Suceava v OHIM — Adiguzel (URB)

(Case T‑506/13)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark URB — Earlier national collective word mark URB and earlier national collective figurative mark URB — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — No authorisation by the proprietor of the earlier marks — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 — No breach of Article 72 of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Applicant in bad faith at the time of lodging the trade mark application — Criteria for assessment — Taking account of all the relevant factors existing at the time of filing the application for registration — Applicant’s knowledge that a third party is using an identical or similar sign — Intention of the applicant — Degree of legal protection of the signs at issue — Commercial logic underlying the registration of the sign contested as a Community trade mark — Chronology of events characterising the filing of the trade mark application — Extent of reputation (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paras 25‑30, 33-36, 43)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Applicant in bad faith at the time of lodging the trade mark application — Word mark URB (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paras 37-47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 July 2013 (Case R 1309/2012‑4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA and Mr Harun Adiguzel.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA to pay the costs;