ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and (2)(a)(i) and (iii), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 13-16, 57)

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 — Complementary nature of the goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 21, 27)

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 AINHOA and figurative marks NOA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 35-48, 58, 59)

4. 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 — High distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and (5), and 53(1)(a)) (see para. 50)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(5), and 53(1)(a)) (see para. 62)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 June 2013 (Case R 1643/2012-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between L’Oréal and Cosmetica Cabinas SL.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 October 2015 —

TrekStor v OHIM (SmartTV Station)

(Case T‑649/13)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark SmartTV Station — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(3) of Regulation 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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 20)

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 — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 21, 23)

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 — Word mark SmartTV Station (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 22, 39, 43-45)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of non-discrimination — Irrelevant (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 36-38)

5. 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 — Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 42)

6. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks which are devoid of distinctive character, descriptive or commonplace — Exception — Distinctive character acquired through use — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) to (d)) (see paras 66, 67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2013 (Case R 128/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign SmartTV Station as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 —

CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT VODKA)

(Case T‑450/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark WISENT VODKA — Earlier national three-dimensional mark ŹUBRÓWKA — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the marks — Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Application not sufficiently clear and precise — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d)) (see paras 17-19)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Modification of the terms of the dispute as brought before the Board of Appeal — Not permissible (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2); Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188) (see para. 27)

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 41, 42, 66)

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 — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44, 56-58, 81, 82, 95, 103)

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 — Figurative mark WISENT VODKA and three-dimensional mark ŻUBRÓWKA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49, 135, 136, 140)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 June 2013 (Case R 1734/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Przedsiębiorstwo Polmos Białystok and Fabryka Wodek Polmos Łańcut SA.

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 10 June 2013 (Case R 1734/2011-4);
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 October 2015 —

Czech Republic v Commission

(Cases T‑659/13 and T‑660/13)

‛Transport — Directive 2010/40/EU — Intelligent Transport Systems — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 — Provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles — Article 3(1), Article 8 and Article 9(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation No 885/2013 — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 — Data and procedures for the provision of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users — Article 5(1), Article 9 and Article 10(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation No 886/2013’

1. EU institutions — Exercise of powers — Power conferred on the Commission to adopt delegated acts — Obligation not to modify the essential elements of the basic legislative act — Designation by Regulations No 885/2013 and No 886/2013 of zones and sections of the transeuropean road network subject to the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems — Lawfulness (Art. 290 TFEU; Commission Regulations No 885/2013, Art. 3(1), and No 886/2013, Art. 5(1); European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/40, Art. 5(1)) (see paras 40-43)

2. EU institutions — Exercise of powers — Power conferred on the Commission to adopt delegated acts — Commission’s power of assessment to complete legislation in the area concerned — Establishment by Regulations No 885/2013 and No 886/2013 of an obligation on Member States to designate a body entrusted with monitoring operators’ compliance with the requirements laid down by those regulations — Lawfulness (Art. 290 TFEU; Commission Regulations No 885/2013, Art. 8(1), and No 886/2013, Art. 9(1); European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/40, Art. 6(1), and Annex II) (see paras 47, 49, 62, 63, 66, 72-74)

Re:

In Case T‑659/13, application for annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing ITS Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles (OJ 2013 L 247, p. 1) and, in the alternative, application for annulment of Article 3(1), Article 8 and Article 9(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation No 885/2013, and, in Case T‑660/13, application for annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to data and procedures for the provision, where possible, of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users (OJ 2013 L 247, p. 6) and, in the alternative, application for annulment of Article 5(1), Article 9 and Article 10(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation No 886/2013.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T‑659/13 and T‑660/13 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;
The additional payment provided for in Article 69 of Regulation No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the CAP and establishing certain support schemes for farmers is designed, first, to encourage farmers to comply with the requirements to improve the quality of their products and to protect the environment, by way of recompense for their adapting to the new CAP requirements, and secondly, to mitigate the effects which the transition from the direct payments scheme to the single payment scheme entails in any event for some product sectors. In that context, Article 69 of Regulation No 1782/2003 grants all Member States a certain discretion for the purpose of making additional payments under the CAP reform. However, the authorisation granted to the Member States is strictly limited in scope and subject to a series of conditions of both a procedural and substantive nature.

The obligation laid down by Article 48(6) of Regulation No 795/2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Regulation No 1782/2003 enables the Commission to be informed of the eligibility conditions decided upon by the Member States. It also serves to ensure that the operators concerned are aware of the conditions for qualifying for the additional payment provided for in Article 69 of Regulation No 1782/2003 before the beginning of the claim year. In that regard, the incentive function performed by the additional payment can be effective only if the eligibility conditions applicable to a claim year are known to the farmers concerned before the start of that year and are not retrospectively modified.

(see paras 30, 31, 33)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 18 February 2016 — Harrys Pubar and Harry’s New York Bar v OHIM — Harry’s New York Bar and Harrys Pubar (HARRY’S BAR)

(Joined Cases T‑711/13 and T‑716/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark HARRY’S BAR — Earlier national figurative mark PUB CASINO Harrys RESTAURANG — Partial refusal of registration — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 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 38-40, 43, 44, 101, 102)

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 — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 76, 77, 84, 85)

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 mark HARRY’S BAR and figurative mark PUB CASINO Harrys RESTAURANG (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 91-100, 106-108)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (Joined Cases R 946/2012-1 and R 995/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Harrys Pubar AB and Harry’s New York Bar SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls, in Case T‑711/13, points 1 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 October 2013 (Joined Cases R 946/2012-1 and R 995/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Harrys Pubar AB and Harry’s New York Bar SA;

2. Dismisses, in Case T‑716/13, the action brought by Harry’s New York Bar;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 —

Sto v OHIM — Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding (CRETEO)

(Case T‑640/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CRETEO — Earlier national word marks StoCretec and STOCRETE — Relative ground for refusal — Distinctive character acquired through use — 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 22-24, 91)

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 paras 28, 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 31, 92)

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 — High distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 95, 96)

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 mark CRETEO — Word marks StoCretec and STOCRETE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 107-112)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 September 2013 (Case R 905/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sto AG and Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding AG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
16

After receiving observations from the Spanish Authorities and other interested parties, the Commission on 19 June 2013 adopted Decision 2014/489/EU on State aid SA.28599 ((C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/2010, ex CP 163/2009)) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 52; ‘the contested decision’), the operative part of which provides as follows: ‘Article 1 The state aid granted to the operators of the terrestrial television platform for the deployment, maintenance and operation of the digital terrestrial television network in Area II unlawfully put into effect by [the Kingdom of] Spain in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU is incompatible with the internal market, except for the aid which was granted in compliance with the principle of technological neutrality. Article 2 The individual aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 does not constitute aid if, at the time it is granted, it fulfils the conditions laid down by a regulation adopted pursuant to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 applicable at the time the aid is granted. Article 3 1. [The Kingdom of] Spain shall recover the incompatible aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 from the Digital Terrestrial Television operators, whether they received the aid directly or indirectly. 2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were made available to the beneficiaries until their recovery. 3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004. 4. [The Kingdom of] Spain shall cancel all outstanding payments of aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this decision. Article 4 1. Recovery of the aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective. 2. [The Kingdom of] Spain shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification thereof. 3. Within two months following notification of this Decision, [the Kingdom of] Spain shall submit the following information to the Commission: (a) the list of beneficiaries that have received aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1 and the total amount of aid received by each of them under that scheme, broken down by the categories indicated in section 6.2 above; (b) the total amount (principal and recovery interest) to be recovered from each beneficiary; … Article 5 This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.’
27

It should be recalled that the statement of reasons required under Article 296 TFEU must be appropriate to the measure in question and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted that measure, in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent court to carry out its review. As regards, in particular, the reasons given for individual decisions, the purpose of the obligation to state the reasons on which an individual decision is based is, therefore, in addition to permitting review by the Courts, to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to know whether the decision may be vitiated by an error enabling its validity to be challenged. Moreover, the requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 296 TFEU must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question (see judgment of 19 March 2015, Dole Food and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe v Commission, C‑286/13 P, EU:C:2015:184, paragraphs 93 and 94 and case-law cited).