ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 October 2015 —

CBM v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare (TRECOLORE)

(Case T‑365/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark TRECOLORE — Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks FRECCE TRICOLORI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-23)

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 — Earlier mark consisting of a Community trade mark — Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 36)

3. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (see para. 44)

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 mark TRECOLORE — Word and figurative marks FRECCE TRICOLORI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 48-70, 73-75)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 April 2014 (Case R 411/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore and CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 October 2015 —

Atlantic Multipower Germany v OHIM — Nutrichem Diät + Pharma (NOxtreme)

(Case T‑186/14)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark NOxtreme — Earlier Community and national figurative marks X-TREME — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Probative value of the evidence — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 57(2) and (3)) (see paras 25, 26)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 38)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark NOxtreme and figurative marks X-TREME (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 44, 45, 57, 65, 66)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (Case R 764/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Atlantic Multipower Germany GmbH & Co. OHG and Nutrichem Diät + Pharma GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 November 2015 —

Jaguar Land Rover v OHIM (Shape of a car)

(Case T‑629/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a car — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance — Direction issued to the Office — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 10)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product itself — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment — Shape in question being a ‘variant’ of the habitual shapes of the type of products concerned — Fact not sufficient to establish distinctiveness of the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 16-21)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark constituted by the shape of the product — Shape of a car (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 22-26, 45)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2014 (Case R 1622/2013-2) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a car as a Community trade mark.

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 24 April 2014 (Case R 1622/2013-2) in so far as it refused registration of the mark applied for as regards ‘vehicles for locomotion by air and water’ in Class 12;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Jaguar Land Rover Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay nine-tenths of those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 —

Matratzen Concord v OHIM– Barranco Rodriguez and Barranco Schnitzler (Matratzen Concord)

(Case T‑526/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the Community word mark Matratzen Concord — Earlier national word marks MATRATZEN — Relative ground of refusal — Proof of use — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 20)

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 — Determination of the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23)

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 Matratzen Concord and word marks MATRATZEN (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 35, 51)

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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25-27)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37-39)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 April 2014 (Case R 1523/2013-1) relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler and, on the other hand, Matratzen Concord GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 26)
3.

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 — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 23)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 —

Stavytskyi v Council

(Case T‑486/14)

‛Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Proof that inclusion on the list is justified’

1. Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Interest to be assessed at the time at which an action is brought — Action brought against an act imposing restrictive measures on the applicant — Repeal of the contested act in the course of the proceedings — Declaration that no need to adjudicate — Inadmissibility — Applicant maintaining an interest in obtaining recognition that the contested act unlawful (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP, as amended by Decisions 2014/216/CFSP and 2015/364/CFSP; Council Regulation No 208/2014, as amended by Regulations Nos 381/2014 and 2015/357) (see paras 25-30)

2. European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Ambit of the review — Proof the measure well-founded — Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the grounds held against the persons or entities concerned well-founded (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP, as amended by Decision No 2014/216/CFSP; Council Regulation No 208/2014, as amended by Regulation No 381/2014) (see paras 37-50)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 91) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 33), in so far as the applicant’s name was included on the list of persons, entities and bodies covered by those restrictive measures.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 implementing Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as they concern Mr Edward Stavytskyi;
A proposal concerning additional years of pensionable service, sent to an official with a view to a transfer to the European Union pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another scheme, does not produce binding legal effects directly and immediately affecting the legal situation of the person concerned by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position. Accordingly, it does not constitute an act having adverse effect, within the meaning of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.

Under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, actual determination of the number of years of pensionable service accredited to an official who has requested a transfer, to the EU pension scheme, of his pension rights formerly acquired under another scheme must necessarily take place after the transfer has actually taken place, ‘on the basis of the capital transferred’. It cannot therefore be considered that a proposal to calculate years of pensionable service which, by its very nature, is communicated prior to that transfer can make such a determination.

The number of years of pensionable service to be credited results from application of the method of conversion into years of pensionable service of the capital representing the former rights, laid down in the general implementing provisions adopted by the institution in question pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

It is the decision adopted once the transfer of the capital representing the pension rights acquired by the person concerned before entering the service has taken place which constitutes an act having adverse effect and which may form the subject of an action for annulment under Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 52, 54, 58, 70)
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 — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public — Daily necessary foodstuffs intended for the general public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 16)
1.

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Account taken by the General Court of matters of law and fact which have not been raised previously before the departments of OHIM — Not included (Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2)) (see para. 15)
The law applicable to a contract concluded by an EU institution is that expressly provided for in the contract and the contractual provisions expressing the common intention of the parties must take precedence over any other criterion which might be used only where the contract is silent on a particular point. In the event that the contract is silent, the EU courts must determine which law is applicable, guided by the principles that are generally accepted in the Member States and using the rules of private international law, in particular those found in the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations, replaced by the Regulation No 593/2008 (Rome I).

In that regard, concerning a contract for the carriage of goods concluded between the Commission and the successful tenderer in the procedure under Regulation No 1799/1999 on the supply of beef to Russia, in accordance with Regulation No 111/1999 laying down general rules for the application of Regulation No 2802/98, where the carrier has his place of residence in France and it is clear from Annex II to Regulation No 1799/1999 that the place of delivery of the beef destined for Russia took place in France, a dispute concerning that contract must be resolved on the basis of its clauses, that is to say, with regard to the provisions of Regulation No 111/1999 and Regulation No 1799/1999 and, for any matter not covered by those regulations, with regard to French law.

(see paras 23, 25-28)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 May 2016 —

mobile.international v EUIPO — Rezon (mobile.de)

(Joined Cases T‑322/14 and T‑325/14)

‛EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word and figurative trade marks mobile.de — Earlier national figurative mark mobile — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 15(1), Article 57(2) and Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 40(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95’

1. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Facts and evidence not submitted in time — Account taken — Discretion of the Office (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22) (see paras 25-30)

2. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Subject-matter and scope of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 57(2)) (see paras 53-55)

3. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Figurative mark mobile (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 57(2)) (see paras 61, 74)

4. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 57(2)) (see paras 63, 64)

5. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of non-discrimination — No effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 73)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January (Case R 922/2013-1) and 13 February 2014 (Case R 951/2013-1) relating to two cancellation proceedings between mobile.international GmbH and Rezon OOD.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 April 2016 —

Gervais Danone v EUIPO — Mahou (B’lue)

(Case T‑803/14)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark B’lue — Earlier EU word mark BLU DE SAN MIGUEL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 17, 18, 69)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 B’lue and word mark BLU DE SAN MIGUEL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21, 71-75)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 the dominant component(s) (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23, 39)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 para. 70)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2014 (Case R 1382/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between San Miguel, Fabricas de Cerveza y Malta, SA and Compagnie Gervais Danone.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judicial proceedings—Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings—Conditions—Pleas based on matters which have come to light in the course of the procedure—Matters revealed following the service of documents produced pursuant to an investigation measure—Admissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 84(1))

(see paras 46-49)