ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 December 2011 – Mövenpick v OHIM (PASSIONATELY SWISS)

(Case T-377/09)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark PASSIONATELY SWISS – Absolute grounds for refusal – Geographical indication of origin – Lack of distinctive character

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 21, 39, 44-45, 48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 (Case R 1457/2008-1) relating to an application for registration of the word mark PASSIONATELY SWISS as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 June 2012 —

Meda Pharma v OHIM — Nycomed (ALLERNIL)



(Joined Cases T-492/09 and T-147/10)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark ALLERNIL — Application for Community word mark ALLERNIL — Earlier national word mark ALLERGODIL — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Grounds — Article 75 of 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 52)

Re:

Two actions brought against two decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2009 (Cases R 1386/2007-4 and R 697/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Meda Pharma GmbH & Co. KG and Nycomed GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2012 — Volkswagen v OHIM — Suzuki Motor (SWIFT GTi)

(Case T-63/09)

Community Trade Mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SWIFT GTi — Earlier international and national marks GTI — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Rejection of the opposition

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 40-42, 117-118, 127, 131-135)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2008 (Case R 749/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Volkswagen AG and Suzuki Motor Corp.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Signs capable of constituting a mark – Signs composed of a letter or combination of letters – 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, Arts 4, 7 and 8(1)(b)) (see para. 49)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 55, 74, 78)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2010 (Case R 1281/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Guccio Gucci SpA and Mr Maurice Emram.

Information relating to the case

>lt>19

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Maurice Emram to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 17, 25

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 August 2010 (Case R 640/2010-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign DYNAMIC SUPPORT as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisse s the action;

2. Orders Nike International Ltd to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 54, 64-65

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 June 2010 (Case R 1005/2009‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between (i) Three‑N‑Products Private Ltd and (ii) S. Shah, A. Shah and Mr M. Shah.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 June 2010 (Case R 1005/2009‑4);

2. Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and those of Three‑N‑Products Private Ltd;

3. Orders Sheleish Shah and Akhil Shah to bear their own costs and the costs necessarily incurred by Three‑N‑Products Private Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 38, 44, 49, 53

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 March 2010 (Case R 1336/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Weihermüller & Voigtmann GmbH & Co. KG and Deutsche Medi Präventions GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 March 2010 (Case R 1336/2008-4);

2. Orders OHIM to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Medi GmbH & Co. KG;

3. Orders Deutsche Medien Center GmbH to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23-24, 35-37, 48, 53

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2010 (Case R 1556/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 and Parfums Givenchy SA.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20, 24-25

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 September 2010 (Case R 1027/2010‑2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign DIRECT DRIVE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 January 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Ruan (B)

(Case T-593/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark containing the letter ‘B’ — Earlier Community figurative mark containing the letter ‘B’ — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 47-49)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 October 2010 (Case R 576/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés and Jian Min Ruan.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders El Corte Inglès, SA to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 January 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Ruan (B)

(Case T-593/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark containing the letter ‘B’ — Earlier Community figurative mark containing the letter ‘B’ — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 47-49)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 October 2010 (Case R 576/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés and Jian Min Ruan.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 33-34, 67

)
An undertaking cannot, in principle, bring an action for annulment of a Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme if it is concerned by that decision solely by virtue of belonging to the sector in question and being a potential beneficiary of the scheme. Such a decision is, vis-à-vis such an undertaking, a measure of general application covering situations which are determined objectively and entails legal effects for a class of persons envisaged in a general and abstract manner. However, where the decision in question is of concern to the applicant undertaking not only by virtue of its being an undertaking in the sector concerned and a potential beneficiary of the aid scheme, but also by virtue of its being an actual beneficiary of individual aid granted under that scheme, the recovery of which has been ordered by the Commission, that decision is of individual concern to the applicant and the applicant’s action against it is admissible.

An undertaking may also be individually concerned as a result of its having played a significant role in the procedure leading to the adoption of the incompatibility decision, where it occupies a clearly circumscribed position as negotiator which is intimately linked to the actual subject-matter of the decision, thus placing it in a factual situation which distinguishes it from all other persons. However, if the undertaking confines itself to submitting comments, in the same way as the other parties concerned, and to attending a meeting, like other interested third parties, it is not apparent from those circumstances that it occupies a position as negotiator that would mean that it could be recognised as being individually concerned.

(see paras 25-26, 34-35)
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark

—

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

—

Relative grounds for refusal

—

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

—

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 60, 65

)
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment

—

Interest in bringing proceedings

—

Need for such an interest to exist when the action brought and continue until delivery of the court’s decision

—

Action brought against a Commission decision granting a subsidy in accordance with a convention terminated during the proceedings

—

No further interest in bringing an action

—

No need to adjudicate (Art. 230, fourth para, EC) (see paras 14, 16, 18-19

)
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark

—

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

—

Relative grounds for refusal

—

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

—

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 36

)
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark

—

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

—

Relative grounds for refusal

—

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

—

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40-42, 76-83

)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — XXXLutz Marken v OHIM — Meyer Manufacturing (CIRCON)

(Case T-542/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CIRCON — Prior Community word mark CIRCULON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Highly distinctive character — Goodwill — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Procedure before the Board of Appeal — Rights of the defence — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Summary statement of pleas (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 21)

2. 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, Arts 42(1), and 75) (see paras 70-72, 90)

3. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Amendment of a decision by the Office — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 98)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2010 (Case R 40/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Meyer Manufacturing Co. Ltd and XXXLutz Marken GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 September 2010 (Case R 40/2010-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by XXXLutz Marken GmbH;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

—

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

—

Relative grounds for refusal

—

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

—

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40-42, 76-83

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2010 (Case R 4/2009‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between Olive Line International, SL and O. International Srl.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) of 14 April 2010 (Case R 4/2009‑4) is annulled in so far as it concerns, first, all the goods covered by the trade mark application in Class 3, namely ‘bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use, cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations, soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, dentifrices’, and, second, ‘hygiene and beauty care for humans and animals’ in Class 44 covered by the trade mark application;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders OHIM and Umbria Olii International Srl to bear three quarters of their own costs and each to pay three eighths of the costs incurred by Olive Line International, SL;

4. Orders Olive Line International, SL to pay, in addition to one quarter of its own costs, one quarter of the costs incurred by OHIM and Umbria Olii International Srl.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2012 — Interspeed v Commission

(Case T-587/10)

‛Non-contractual liability — External relations — Call for tenders issued by the EAR concerning work at the Preševo (Serbia) border crossing, the financing of the works and other connected measures — No causal link’

1. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 38, 56)

2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Concept — Burden of proof — Conduct complained of part of a process involving third parties — Damage directly caused by intervention of a third party — Intervention not linked to the conduct complained of — No causal link (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 39, 40, 58)

3. Proceedings — Measures of inquiry — Expert’s report — Site visit — Hearing of witnesses — Discretion of the General Court (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 66(1)) (see para. 81)

Re:

APPLICATION for compensation in respect of damage allegedly resulting from works carried out at the Preševo (Serbia) border crossing under a contract financed by the EAR.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 October 2012 — riha v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL&FIT)

(Case T-552/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark VITAL&FIT — Earlier national word mark VITAFIT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Aim (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see paras 18, 19)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 36)

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 VITAL&FIT and word mark VITAFIT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38-41, 62, 65)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42, 43)

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 — Low distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 64)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2010 (Case R 1229/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and riha Richard Hartinger Getränke GmbH & Co. Handels-KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Entity absorbed by another legal person — Disappearance of that entity — Substitution of the legal successor in the legal action of its predecessor (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 21)

2. Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time the action brought — Basis of a possible action for compensation (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 29-31, 40, 41)

3. Approximation of laws — Medicinal products for human use — Authorisation to market — Modification of the authorisation — Withdrawal and prohibition on marketing — Conditions — Evidential requirements — Need for new scientific data or information (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 726/2004; European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Arts 116 and 117) (see paras 51, 52, 56, 57, 60, 61, 63, 69, 70, 73-75, 79, 87)

4. Approximation of laws — Medicinal products for human use — Authorisation to market — Modification of the authorisation — Withdrawal and prohibition on marketing — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits — No breach of principle of proportionality (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 726/2004; European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Arts 116 and 117) (see paras 66, 82, 85, 88, 89, 92, 93, 113, 114)

5. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision granting, refusing, modifying, suspending or withdrawing a marketing authorisation — Minimum requirements (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 726/2004, Art. 81(1)) (see paras 124, 125, 130)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission decisions of 29 March and 16 September 2010 relating to the suspension of the placing on the market of medicinal products for human use containing the active ingredient Clopidogrel manufactured on a certain site, to the withdrawal of batches of those medicinal products from the market, to the variation of the authorisation to place those medicinal products on the market and prohibition from placing them on the market.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Rules that it is not necessary to give judgment on the application to the extent that it is directed against Commission Decisions C(2010) 2204 and C(2010) 2208 of 29 March 2010, and against Commission Decisions C(2010) 6429 and C(2010) 6436 of 16 September 2010;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Acino AG to pay the costs.