ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 October 2012 — Automobili Lamborghini v OHIM — Miura Martínez (Miura)

(Case T-191/11)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark Miura — Earlier national word and figurative marks MIURA — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Notification by ordinary mail — Rule 62(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence) (see para. 20)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Notification — Notification by ordinary mail (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 62(1) to (5)) (see paras 23-36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2011 (Case R 161/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Eduardo Miura Martínez and Antonio José Miura Martínez and Automobili Lamborghini Holding SpA.

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 21 January 2011 (Case R 161/2010 4);
34

In that regard, on the one hand, it is necessary to highlight the role that ACER now plays as a new actor in the procedure to be followed by the national authorities. In the event of a persistent disagreement between the national authorities on the appropriateness of granting an exemption or on the criteria governing the management of the newly created capacities, the single decision that ACER is called on to make, in accordance with the rules of the Third Gas Directive, is liable to differ substantially from the individual decisions that would have been taken, under the rules of the Second Gas Directive, by the national authorities concerned. Moreover, ACER’s significant consultative role before those national authorities must be emphasised. Although the present case does not relate to an infrastructure situated in several Member States, that feature of the present case cannot affect the examination of the divisible nature of the procedural and substantive rules, which is independent of any specific case.
65

Fifthly, the Commission refers to the study entitled ’Study to Analyse the Derogation Request on the use of Heavy Metals in Plastic Crates and Plastic Pallets’, dated 29 September 2008, which concerns the behaviour of cadmium and heavy metal pigments in landfills. That study contains an extract of a report of the Nordic Council of Ministers of 2003, according to which the mobility of cadmium inside landfills is low and according to which a complete wash-out of cadmium by rain may require hundreds to thousands of years and in some cases even more, but which states that no evidence exists that landfills can be regarded as permanent containment of cadmium. Next, the study indicates that the stability of heavy metals seems to depend on the integrity of the crate/pallet. That study refers to a documented case in which the storage of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) granulates coloured with cadmium pigments outside in the open air for 5-6 years gave rise to elevated cadmium concentrations in the soil and surrounding water courses. Furthermore, that study refers to two other studies. According to the first, cadmium sulphide yellow pigments have excellent resistance – except in the presence of moisture – and are thus not very sensitive to external changes. According to the second, cadmium pigments are lightfast, but can slowly be oxidised to soluble sulphates by light (UV rays), air and water. That photo-oxidation is more pronounced in cadmium yellow than cadmium red. However, according to that second study, the capacity of the substance’s resistance to light and the weather depends on the pigment and also on the medium in which the pigment is used, namely whether the crates and pallets are whole or granulated.
55

Lastly, the conclusion mentioned in the extract from the evaluation report and cited by the applicant must be read in its context (see paragraphs 32 to 38 above). The extract begins with the statement that, having analysed the response of 29 June 2011, the evaluation committee came to the conclusion that the applicant’s tenders had to be rejected because of their abnormally low prices. This is followed by an analysis of the clarifications provided on 29 June 2011 concerning the prices considered by the contracting authority to be abnormally low; that analysis highlights inconsistencies between those clarifications and the applicant’s tenders, casts doubt on the economic realism of the prices proposed for some profiles and disputes the inclusion of certain costs in those prices. The extract ends with the conclusion cited by the applicant, summarising the reasons why the clarifications provided on 29 June 2011 could not be taken into consideration because of their inconsistency with the content of the applicant’s tenders. Therefore, contrary to what the applicant claims, that conclusion was not irrelevant with regard to the ground for the rejection of its tenders — in the present case their abnormally low price — and the reasoning which the PO added by reference to the evaluation report of the evaluation committee was not unconnected with that ground.
64

In their reply to the General Court’s written questions in the initial case, the applicants also clarified the manner in which the requested information is linked to the concept of ‘emissions into the environment’. Thus, they stated that the impurities contained in glyphosate are released into the environment at the same time as the glyphosate itself. Moreover, those impurities may have, depending on their quantity, an influence on the outcome of the tests that are prescribed for the examination of the adverse effects of glyphosate with a view to its inclusion in Annex I of Directive 91/414. In order to be able to verify whether the tests carried out for the purpose of its inclusion are representative of the emissions into the environment that occur during the use of plant protection products containing glyphosate, it is thus essential to have the information about the analytical profile of batches. In annex to their reply, the applicants included a document indicating, inter alia, a process by which glyphosate is manufactured and the elements that are added in order to produce that active substance, and emphasising the fact that the impurities present in the active substance produced will be emitted into the environment. Furthermore, that document stresses the importance of obtaining the information relating to the analytical profile of the lots tested, in order to verify whether that profile corresponds to that of the products placed on the market, since a small scale production may lead to an analytical profile of glyphosate different from that produced on a large scale with a view to its marketing. In obtaining that information, it is possible to verify any differences between the analytical profiles of the batches tested with a view to the inclusion of glyphosate in Annex I to Directive 91/414 and those of products placed on the market, and to determine whether the tests carried out were relevant as regards the actual emission of glyphosate into the environment. Lastly, that document emphasises that the information requested would allow the verification of the level of the metabolite into which glyphosate transforms; a metabolite which is emitted into the environment, is very persistent and pollutes groundwater.
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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-21, 53)

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 — Figurative marks LIBERTE american blend and La LIBERTAD (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 31, 40, 45, 52, 55)

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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment — Complementary nature of the goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 33)

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

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 387/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Villiger Söhne GmbH and GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community designs — Ground for invalidity — Use of a distinctive sign in a subsequent design — Use of a sign representing a similarity with the distinctive sign — Inclusion (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 25(1)(e)) (see paras 23, 24)

2. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — Use of a distinctive sign in a subsequent design — Representation of a cleaning device (Council Regulations No 6/2002, Art. 25(1)(e), and No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 9(1)(b)) (see paras 25-29, 42, 47-49, 53, 64)

3. Community trade mark — Effects of the Community trade mark — Rights conferred by a trade mark — Right to prohibit the use of the mark — Use of an identical or similar sign covering identical or similar products or services — Concept of use (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 9(1)(b)) (see para. 39)

4. Community trade mark — Effects of the Community trade mark — Rights conferred by a trade mark — Right to prohibit the use of the mark — Use of an identical or similar sign covering identical or similar products or services — Likelihood of confusion with the mark — Assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b),and 9(1)(b)) (see paras 44, 45, 61, 63)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 October 2011 (Case R 2179/2010-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between AM Denmark A/S and Su-Shan Chen.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Su-Shan Chen to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Sohawon (fRee YOUR STYLe.)

(Case T-282/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark fRee YOUR STYLe. — Earlier Community and national word marks FREE STYLE — 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 27, 28, 46)

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 — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 29)

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 — Figurative mark fRee YOUR STYLe. and word marks FREE STYLE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 39, 45, 51, 52)

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 33, 34)

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 para. 40)

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 of the marks concerned — Possibility of a visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 41)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 April 2012 (Case R 1825/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA and Ms Nadia Mariam Sohawon.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — Interroll v OHIM (Inspired by efficiency)

(Case T-126/12)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Inspired by efficiency — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Inadmissible (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 22-25)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark Inspired by efficiency (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 30, 39-43, 45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2012 (Case R 1280/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of word sign Inspired by efficiency as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 December 2013 — Eckes-Granini v OHIM — Panini (PANINI)

(Case T‑487/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark PANINI — Earlier national and Community word marks GRANINI — Relative ground for refusal — No 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 20, 21)

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 — Figurative mark PANINI and word marks GRANINI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 26, 68-70)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 28)

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 — Weighting of the elements of difference or similarity of the signs — Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the conditions in which the goods or services are marketed (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 63)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Case R 2393/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Eckes-Granini Group GmbH and Panini SpA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Summary statement of pleas (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 18)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — Obligation to communicate, following a written request, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the tenderer — Assessment having regard to information available to the applicant at the time the action brought — Burden of proving the date of receipt of information sent by email (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 28-32, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42)

3. Judicial proceedings — Producing evidence — Time-limit — Evidence lodged out of time — Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(1)) (see para. 44)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the EIGE of 26 July 2012 to reject the tender of the applicant in tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) of 26 July 2012 to reject the tender of Gaumina UAB in tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13;

2. Orders the EIGE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Gaumina.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Representation of an armchair (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 14, 17, 18, 21, 31, 42, 60, 61)

2. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Informed user — Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 16)

3. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Criteria for assessment — Creative licence (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(2) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 20)

4. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — General tendency in design matters — Not relevant (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 April 2012 (Case R 969/2011‑3) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Gandia Blasco, SA and Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture, L da .

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture L da to pay its own costs and also the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

3. Orders Gandia Blasco, SA to pay its own costs.