ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The provisions of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, according to which that regulation applies without prejudice to other specific Union provisions relating to the placing of products on the market and, in particular, to the single common organisation of the markets, and to food labelling, must be understood as meaning that a name may be included on the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (TSGs) only if it complies with the marketing conditions set out in Regulation No 1234/2007, establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (‘Single CMO’ Regulation).

In that context, characterised by the importance attached by the EU legislature to standardising the commercial names for agricultural products in order to preserve competition and to protect consumers, an interpretation to the effect that Regulations No 1234/2007 and No 1151/2012 constitute alternative methods of registering the names of agricultural products cannot be accepted, as it would have the effect of allowing a Member State to use the TSG system in order to circumvent the rules concerning marketing standards fixed by Regulation No 1234/2007 and, supposing that the product at issue could be marketed, of conferring on the latter an unfair competitive advantage and of misleading the consumer.

Likewise, the argument that that reasoning would have the effect of reducing the effectiveness of Regulation No 1151/2012, by establishing an additional procedure and limiting the appeal of the TSG qualification, cannot be upheld. The two regulations have objectives in part distinct, and provide different conditions. It is reasonable that, to the general marketing conditions for agricultural products provided in Regulation No 1234/2007, should be added the specific and distinct procedure provided by Regulation No 1151/2012, designed to provide consumers with a guarantee that certain agricultural products can legitimately claim to possess characteristics giving them an added value.

(see paras 30, 35, 41, 50)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 —

Drogenhilfe Köln Projekt v OHIM (Rauschbrille)

(Case T‑319/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Rauschbrille — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Interpretation in the light of the underlying public interest — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 14)

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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 15-17)

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 — Neologism consisting of elements descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services concerned — Whether included where the nature of the combination is not unusual (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 18)

4. 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 Rauschbrille (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 22-24)

5. 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 32, 33)

6. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark Rauschbrille (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 34-36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (Case R 1356/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Rauschbrille as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 16-19)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), 51(1)(a), and 78(1)(f); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(3) and (4)) (see paras 29, 38)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1118/2013-2), relating to proceedings for revocation between Zainab Ansell and Roger Ansell, on one hand, and Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex), on the other hand.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18)

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 PRIMA KLIMA and PRIMAGAZ (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23, 94-100)

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 24, 31, 34)

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 38-43, 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 94, 97)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2014 (Case R 2304/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz SA and Mr Gerhard Reeh.

Operative part

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 7 January 2014 (Case R 2304/2012-1) in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed the action before it as regards the goods ‘apparatus for lighting, heating, drying and ventilating; activated carbon filters for ventilation purposes’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party 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 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 — Word mark LEXDELL and figurative mark DELL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 16-27)

2. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — General reference in support of a second plea to matters set out in the context of the first — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 30)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2014 (Case R 966/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Dell, Inc., and Ms Alexandra Dellmeier.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Alexandra Dellmeier to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community designs — Appeals procedure — Appeal to a Board of Appeal — Stay of proceedings — Conditions (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 68; Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 32(2); Commission Regulation No 216/96, Art. 8) (see paras 23-27)

2. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — Use of a distinctive sign in a subsequent design — Use of a sign showing similarity with the distinctive sign — Inclusion (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 25(1)(e)) (see paras 44, 47, 83-85, 97)

3. Community designs — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62) (see paras 68, 69, 71)

4. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — Use of a distinctive sign in a subsequent design — Perception by the public of the design as a distinctive sign (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 25(1)(e)) (see para. 87)

5. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — Use of a distinctive sign in a subsequent design — Comparison between the design at issue and the distinctive sign — Design DIESEL and word mark DIESEL (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 25(1)(e)) (see paras 100-103)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 February 2014 (Case R 855/2012-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Diesel SpA and Mansour Dairek Attoumi.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mansour Dairek Attoumi to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — No obligation on the court to examine in a given order — Absence of one of those conditions — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 21, 22)

2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Concept — Right to respect for private and family life — Included (Art. 340, second para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 7) (see paras 30-33)

3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Burden of proof on the applicant — Assessment of the probative value of a document — Criterion — Reliability of evidence produced (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 50)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for damages seeking, firstly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of the unauthorised use of her late husband’s picture among the photographs proposed by the Commission for the health warnings to be shown on tobacco packages pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 5(3) of Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 26) and Commission Decision 2003/641/EC of 5 September 2003 on the use of colour photographs or other illustrations as health warnings on tobacco packages (OJ 2003 L 226, p. 24) and, secondly, the withdrawal of her late husband’s picture and a prohibition on its use within the European Union.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Ana Pérez Gutiérrez to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 October 2015 —

Jurašinović v Council

(Case T‑658/14)

‛Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents exchange with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former-Yugoslavia in the course of legal proceedings — Decision taken following the partial annulment by the Tribunal of the initial decision — Partial refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of international relations’

1. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Strict interpretation and adoption — Obligation to make a specific and individual examination for documents covered by an exception — Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, eleventh recital and Arts 1 and 4) (see paras 21-24)

2. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the public interest — Judicial review — Scope — Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(a), third indent) (see paras 26-28)

3. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Mandatory exceptions — Prior balancing of the interests at stake — Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(a), and (2)) (see para. 29)

4. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Refusal based on several exceptions — One of the exceptions well-founded — Sufficient to justify the refusal decision (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4) (see para. 38)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Council decision of 8 July 2014 refusing to grant the applicant full access to certain documents exchanged with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the case against Mr Ante Gotovina, taken following the partial annulment of the initial decision by judgment of 3 October 2012 in Jurašinović v Council (T‑63/10, Rec, EU:T:2012:516).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action in so far as the claims for annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 8 July 2014 refusing to grant Mr Ivan Jurašinović full access to certain documents exchanged with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the proceedings against Mr Ante Gotovina, taken following the partial annulment of the initial decision by judgment of 3 October 2012 in Jurašinović v Council (T‑63/10, Rec, EU:T:2012:516), concern Documents No 7, 25, 33, 34 and 36;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
3.

Where an institution decides to refuse access to a document which it has been asked to disclose, it must, in principle, explain how access to that document could specifically and actually undermine the interest protected by the exception — among those laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 — upon which it is relying. Moreover, the risk of that interest being undermined must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical. The mere fact that a document concerns an interest protected by an exception is not of itself sufficient to justify application of that exception. However, it is possible for the institution concerned to base its decisions on general presumptions which apply to certain categories of documents, as considerations of a generally similar nature are likely to apply to requests for disclosure relating to documents of the same nature. In order for a general presumption to be validly relied upon against a person requesting access to documents on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001, it is necessary that the documents requested belong to the same category of documents or be documents of the same nature. The criterion is both a qualitative and quantitative criterion, namely, the fact that the documents requested relate to one and the same procedure, and not a purely quantitative criterion, namely, the lesser or greater number of documents sought by its requests for access. Moreover, the application of general presumptions is essentially dictated by the overriding need to ensure that the procedures at issue operate correctly and to guarantee that their objectives are not jeopardised. Accordingly, a general presumption may be recognised on the basis that access to the documents involved in certain procedures is incompatible with the proper conduct of such procedures and the risk that those procedures could be undermined, on the understanding that general presumptions ensure that the integrity of the conduct of the procedure can be preserved by limiting intervention by third parties. The application of specific rules provided for by a legal measure relating to a procedure conducted before an EU institution for the purposes of which the documents requested were produced is one of the criteria for recognising a general presumption. (see paras 59, 63, 66, 67, 75)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 2015 —

Comercializadora Eloro v OHIM — Zumex Group (ZUMEX)

(Case T‑354/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ZUMEX — Earlier national figurative mark JUMEX — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. 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 — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see paras 28-30)

2. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Interpretation having regard to the rationale of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3); Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(3)) (see para. 42)

3. 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 — Requirement of solid and objective evidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 43-45, 50, 57, 62, 63)

4. 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, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 46)

5. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 42(2), and 76(2)) (see paras 69, 70)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 February 2014 (Case R 391/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Comercializadora Eloro, SA and Zumex Group, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 —

Novomatic v OHIM — Simba Toys (African SIMBA)

(Case T‑687/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark African SIMBA — Prior national figurative mark Simba — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. 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) (see paras 21, 22)

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 — Earlier mark occupying a distinctive independent position in the trade mark sought (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 33, 121, 122, 132-135)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 36)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39, 44, 46)

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 — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 71-74, 87, 96, 97)

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 mark African SIMBA and figurative mark Simba (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 127-129, 140-142)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 July 2014 (Case R 2098/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG and Novomatic AG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;