ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Application of the criteria to the case in question (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1) and 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 27-29)

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, Arts 15(1) and 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 30, 31)

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 64-66)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark LIDL express and figurative mark LÍDL MUSIC (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 67, 72-82, 84)

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 — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 70, 71)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 March 2012 (Case R 2379/2010‑1) relating to opposition proceedings between Lídl Music spol. s r.o. and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — Steiff v OHIM (Fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy)

(Case T‑434/12)

‛Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 17-21, 32, 39)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Mark consisting of a fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24-44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2012 (Case R 1692/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of a fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Margarete Steiff GmbH to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — Steiff v OHIM (Fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy)

(Case T‑434/12)

‛Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 17-21, 32, 39)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Mark consisting of a fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24-44)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2012 (Case R 1692/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of a fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Partial use — Effect

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2))

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

(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence)

Summary

1. The purpose of opposition proceedings founded on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 is to enable OHIM to assess whether there is a likelihood of confusion, which, where the conflicting marks are similar, entails an examination of the similarity between the goods and services designated by those marks. In that context, if the earlier Community trade mark has been used in relation to part only of the goods or services for which it is registered it is, for the purposes of the examination of the opposition, deemed to be registered in respect only of that part of the goods or services, in accordance with the last sentence of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. In the same context, it is also necessary for the Board of Appeal to assess, where use is proved only in respect of a part of the goods or services in a category in respect of which the earlier mark is registered and which is cited as justification for the opposition, whether that category includes independent sub-categories into which the goods and services in respect of which use is demonstrated may be classified, resulting in a finding that use has been proved only in respect of that sub-category of goods and services or, on the other hand, whether such sub-categories are not possible.

Consequently, there are two inseparable parts to the task of assessing whether a mark relied on in support of a notice of opposition has been put to genuine use within the meaning of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. The first is intended to determine whether the mark at issue has been put to genuine use in the European Union, even in a form which differs by aspects which do not, however, alter the distinctive character of that mark in the form in which it has been registered. The second is intended to determine the goods or services in connection with which the earlier mark is registered and which are cited as justification for the opposition, to which the genuine use demonstrated relates.

(see paras 20, 21)

2. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 24)
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 — Word mark FLEXI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 18-24, 30)

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 registrability by the Office — Production of evidence — Not required (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 29)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of legality — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Relevance (see paras 32, 33)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States — Relevance (see para. 35)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2012 (Case R 1335/2011-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign FLEXI as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Grupo Flexi de León, SA de CV to pay the costs.
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 — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 51)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 July 2014 — Spain and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T‑319/12 and T‑321/12)

‛State aid — Cinematography — Aid for the construction and operation of a film studio complex — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Criterion of private market economy investor — State aid for regional purposes — Aid to promote culture — Duty to state reasons’

1. State aid — Concept — Legal nature — Interpretation on the basis of objective factors — Judicial review — Scope (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 35, 46)

2. State aid — Concept — Assessment according to the criterion of the private investor — Assessment having regard to the average yield on capital invested in the sector concerned — Lawfulness — Limits (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 39-45)

3. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Audi alteram partem — Rights of participation and information of the interested parties — Restricted character (Art. 108(2) TFEU) (see para. 123)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision on State aid (Arts 107 TFEU, 108 TFEU and 296 TFEU) (see paras 149-151, 166, 167)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 3025 final of 8 May 2012 concerning State aid SA.22668 (C 8/2008 (NN 4/2008)), which Spain implemented in favour of Ciudad de la Luz, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Exclusion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 17)

2. 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 — Review of the legal classification given to the facts of the dispute — Review of the assessment by the Board of Appeal of the likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the products undisputed — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see paras 27, 28)

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 34-36, 85)

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 products concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38, 39)

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 56, 57)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative marks T (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 88-92)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2012 (Case R 729/2011-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Tom Tailor GmbH and Tifosi Optics, Inc.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Tifosi Optics, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Tom Tailor GmbH.
1.

Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — EU financing — Suspension or reduction of financial assistance following irregularities — Time-limit for adoption of the Commission’s decision — Point from which time starts to run (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1303/2013, Art. 145(6); Council Regulations No 1164/94, Annex II, Art. H(2), as amended by Regulations No 1264/1999 and No 1265/1999, and No 1083/2006, Art. 100(5); Commission Regulation No 1386/2002, Art. 18(3)) (see paras 22-27)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 — Italy v Commission

(Case T‑387/12)

‛EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Fruit and vegetables — Tomato processing sector — Aid to producer organisations — Expenditure incurred by Italy — Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 — Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Flat-rate correction’

1. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD financing — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof — Allocation between the Commission and the Member State (Council Regulations No 1258/1999, Art. 7(4), and No 1290/2005, Art. 31) (see paras 34-37, 43, 49, 61)

2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD financing — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Finding of defects in the control system established by a Member State — Possibility of Commission disallowing all the expenses — Application of flat-rate correction — No breach of principle of proportionality (Council Regulations No 1258/1999, Art. 7(4), and No 1290/2005, Art. 31) (see paras 55, 64, 68)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of the Commission implementing decision 2012/336/EU of 22 June 2012, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 83).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
6.

Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Belarus — Freezing of funds of certain persons and bodies in view of the situation in Belarus — Obligation to extend that measure to entities owned or controlled by such an entity — Conditions — Acts instituting restrictive measures providing for the application of the latter to the said owned or controlled entities — Names of persons and entities holding or controlling the entities concerned having to be validly entered in the list of persons concerned by the restrictive measures (Council Decisions 2012/642/CFSP and 2014/750/CFSP; Council Regulations No 765/2006, No 1014/2012, No 1017/2012 and No 1159/2014) (see paras 94-98, 112-117)
43

In the first place, it must be noted that the complaint that the Board of Appeal was wrong to examine the general external appearance of the designs at issue only when closed is based on a misreading of the contested decision. It is apparent from the contested decision that it was only in order to support the view that there are no significant differences in the designs of the handles of the designs at issue, which leave the same parts of the screw and lever visible when they are folded, that the Board of Appeal referred, in passing, in paragraphs 21(a) to 24 of the contested decision, to the product in question when closed. Moreover, it is clear from paragraph 5 of the contested decision that the Cancellation Division found that the many similarities between the two designs at issue may be assessed in the same way irrespective of whether the devices are open or closed. That conclusion was not disputed by the applicant before the Board of Appeal. In accordance with the case-law, when the Board of Appeal confirms a lower-level decision of OHIM in its entirety, the decision of the Cancellation Division, together with its statement of reasons, forms part of the context in which the contested decision was adopted, a context which is known to the applicant and which enables the Court to exercise in full its jurisdiction to review legality as regards the question whether the assessment of individual character of the design at issue was well founded (see, to that effect, the judgment of 6 October 2011 in Case T-246/10 Industrias Francisco Ivars v OHIM – Motive (Mechanical speed reducer), not published in the ECR, paragraph 20, and the judgment of 22 May 2012 in Case T-179/11 Sports Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM – Seven (SEVEN SUMMITS), not published in the ECR, paragraph 50). Therefore, contrary to what the applicant maintains, in its assessment of the similarities between the designs at issue, the Board of Appeal, like the Cancellation Division, took account of the device in both the open and closed positions.
39

Thirdly, while the applicants seek, in the present case, application of the judgment of 30 April 2014 in Hagenmeyer and Hahn v Commission (T‑17/12, ECR, EU:T:2014:234), in which the Court accepted that two applicants were directly concerned on the sole ground that they had submitted a request for authorisation of a health claim to the national authorities, it must be noted, in the first place, that that judgment relates to the authorisation procedure referred to in Articles 14 to 18 of Regulation No 1924/2006 concerning health claims relating to a reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health, which differs from the authorisation procedure relevant to the present case, namely the procedure referred to in Article 13(1) to (3) of Regulation No 1924/2006, concerning health claims other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and children’s development and health. Indeed, it should be pointed out that, while, as the Court noted in paragraph 42 of the judgment in Hagenmeyer and Hahn v Commission (EU:T:2014:234), the procedure referred to in Articles 14 to 18 of Regulation No 1924/2006 is initiated when an authorisation request is made by individuals, who can then submit comments on EFSA’s opinions and obtain an individual decision, the procedure referred to in Article 13(1) to (3) of that regulation is based on the lists of claims submitted by Member States, individuals being unable to submit authorisation requests on an individual basis. In the second place, it must be noted that, unlike the position in the present case, in the judgment in Hagenmeyer and Hahn v Commission (EU:T:2014:234), the Court held that the applicants were directly concerned in so far as the final decision refusing their authorisation request appeared in the contested regulation. In the present case, however, and in line with the conclusion drawn in paragraph 33 above, the applicants have failed to show that a final decision rejecting the claims that concern them resulted from the adoption of Regulation No 432/2012. Accordingly, the solution upheld in the judgment in Hagenmeyer and Hahn v Commission (EU:T:2014:234) cannot be applied to the present case.
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 14, 16, 20, 48, 53)

2. 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 — Word marks AYUR and AYUS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 15, 19, 22, 27, 29-40, 44-47, 51-54)

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 or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 41, 45)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 November 2012 (Case R 2296/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Munindra Holding BV and Three-N-Products Private Ltd.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Three-N-Products Private Ltd to pay the costs.