ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 May 2010 – Zeta Europe v OHIM (Superleggera)

(Case T-464/08)

Community trade mark – Application for the figurative Community trade mark Superleggera – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Examination of the facts of its own motion – Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009) – Duty to state reasons – Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 24, 31-32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 July 2008 (Case R 666/2008-1), concerning an application for the registration of the figurative sign Superleggera as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Zeta Europe BV Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Superleggera for goods in Classes 12, 18 and 25 – Application No 5456207 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2010 – Freixenet v OHIM (Shape of a frosted black matt bottle)

(Case T-110/08)

Community trade mark – Application for a Community trade mark representing a frosted black matt bottle – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – No distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Duty to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Exception – Acquisition of distinctive character through use (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b), and (3)) (see paras 68, 78, 84, 102, 119-120)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2007 (Case R 104/2001-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign representing a frosted black matt bottle as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Freixenet SA Community trade mark sought: Three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a frosted matt black bottle for goods in Class 33 – Application No 32540 Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2010 – Granuband v OHIM – Granuflex (GRANUflex)

(Case T-534/08)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community figurative mark GRANUflex – Previous company name and business name GRANUFLEX – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 8(4) and 52(1)(c)) (see paras 35-38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2008 (Case R 1277/2007-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Granuflex Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft and Granuband BV.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: Figurative mark GRANUFLEX for goods in Classes 17, 19 and 27 – Community trade mark No 943118 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Granuband BV Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Granuflex Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft Trade mark of the party seeking cancellation: Commercial designation GRANUFLEX for goods and services in Classes 17, 19, 27 and 37 Decision of the Cancellation Division: Community trade mark annulled Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 27 September 2011 – Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional v OHIM – Proton Motor Fuel Cell (PM PROTON MOTOR)

(Case T-581/08)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark PM PROTON MOTOR – Earlier national, Benelux and Community word and figurative marks PROTON – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Lack of similarity between the goods and services – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) 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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 26, 30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 October 2008 (Case R 1675/2007‑1) concerning opposition proceedings between Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn Bhd and Proton Motor Fuel Cell GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
26

The Commission considers that the Hellenic Republic has adopted certain State measures concerning two markets for distinct products, the first being that of supplying lignite and the second being the wholesale electricity market, which concerns the production and supply of electricity in power stations and the importation of electricity by means of interconnection provisions. The Commission indicates that, until May 2005, the date of the creation of the compulsory daily market, the second of those markets was that of the supply to eligible customers of electricity produced at national level and imported and that analysis of that market over the period up to May 2004 has led to the same conclusions as the analysis carried out concerning the wholesale electricity market, which was a potential market at that date. Thus, and taking account of that development of the Greek market indicated by the Hellenic Republic in its letter of 24 January 2007, the Commission emphasises that, whilst the second market must be regarded as the electricity wholesale market, it is nevertheless necessary to deal with the arguments submitted by the Hellenic Republic on the basis of the initial definition of the market (recitals 158 et seq.). As for the geographical markets in question, the market for the supply of lignite was of a national dimension whereas the wholesale electricity market extended to the ‘territory of the interconnected network’ (recitals 167 to 172).
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 March 2012 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission

(Case T‑296/08)

Aid granted under the INTI programme — Determination of the amount to be paid to the beneficiary — Errors of assessment

1. Budget of the European Union — Community financial assistance — Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the aid — Financing covering only expenses actually incurred — Proof of the reality of the expenses declared — Absence — Ineligible expenses (Art. 274 EC) (see paras 48-50, 99)

2. Budget of the European Union — Community financial assistance — Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the aid — Decision to reduce the amount of aid by reason of irregularities — Account taken of irregularities which did not have a precise financial impact — Lawfulness (Art. 274 EC) (see para. 51)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission decision of 23 May 2008 on the partial non-recognition of the costs borne by the applicant in connection with the financing arrangement JLS/2004/INTI/077.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 23 May 2008 on the partial non-recognition of costs borne by Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV in connection with the financing arrangement JLS/2004/INTI/077 as regards expenses relating to headings B 9, B 10, B 37, B 38 and G 5;
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 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 31, 37, 42, 48

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 January 2009 (Case R 996/2008‑4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign SupplementPack as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>4

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders PromoCell bioscience alive GmbH Biomedizinische Produkte to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Surrender, revocation and invalidity

–

Absolute grounds of invalidity

–

Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 30-31

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2009 (Case R 305/2008-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Educa Borras, SA and Ravensburger AG.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ravensburger AG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Contract granting Community financial assistance for a non-nuclear energy project – Amount of approved admissible costs less than the amount of the sum advanced by the Commission – Commission demand for reimbursement of the overpayment – Obligation on the co-contractor to prove the reality of and need for the costs declared to the Commission for the implementation of the project (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 60-61)

2. Procedure – Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause – Contract granting Community financial assistance for a non-nuclear energy project – Amount of approved admissible costs less than the amount of the sum advanced by the Commission – Right to partial reimbursement of the advance, together with late-payment interest – Rate of late-payment interest claimed by the Commission lower than that calculated under the applicable rules of national law (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 73-76)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION under an arbitration clause seeking an order that Irish Electricity Generating Co. Ltd repay the sum of EUR 180 664.70 corresponding to part of the advances paid to it by the Commission under contract No WE/178/97/IE/GB, together with late-payment interest.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Irish Electricity Generating Co. Ltd to repay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 180 664.70, together with late-payment interest:

– at the rate of 5.56% per annum from 25 August 2003 to the date of the present judgment;

– at the annual rate applied under Irish law, that is to say, currently section 26 of the Debtors (Ireland) Act, 1840, as amended, up to a rate of 5.56% per annum from the date of the present judgment until full clearance of the debt;

2. Orders Irish Electricity Generating Co. Ltd to pay the costs.
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

–

Partial use

–

Effect (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see para. 45

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 December 2008 (Case R 1581/2007‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between Reed Business Information (RBI) and Strategi Group Ltd.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Strategi Group Ltd 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 14, 18-21

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2009 (Case R 397/2009-1), relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign KOMPRESSOR PLUS.

Information relating to the case

>lt>17

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Absence – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 17)

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 of the marks concerned – Possibility of a visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 34)

3. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 28, 30, 42, 52)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 July 2009 (Case R 1455/2008-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Grotto SpA and Luciano Bianchin.

Information relating to the case

>lt>15

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Luciano Bianchin to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal brought against a decision of a unit of the Office ruling at first instance and referred to the Board of Appeal – Functional continuity between those two bodies – Examination of the appeal by the Board of Appeal – Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 64(1)) (see paras 15-18)

2. Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 37, 42-45)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2009 (Case R 1101/2007-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Umarex Sportwaffen GmbH & Co. KG and Cybergun SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>5

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Cybergun SA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

Summary

There is no likelihood of confusion on the part of the average European consumer between, on the one hand, the word sign LINEAS AEREAS DEL MEDITERRANEO LAM, registration of which as a Community trade mark is applied for in respect of ‘Transport; packaging and storage of goods; travel arrangement’ in Class 39 of the Nice Agreement, and, on the other hand, the word and figurative marks LAN, registered earlier as Community trade marks in respect of services including those covered by the mark applied for.

The signs at issue, assessed overall, are different, in view, first, of their visual and phonetic differences and, second, either of their conceptual difference for that section of the relevant public which is Spanish-speaking, or of their lack of meaning for that section of the relevant public which is not Spanish-speaking.

The lack of similarity between the signs at issue cannot be offset, in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, by the fact that the designated services are identical.

(see paras 23-24, 44, 47)
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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 30

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 February 2009 (Case R 720/2008‑4) relating to opposition proceedings between apetito AG and Bongrain SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bongrain SA 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 – High distinctiveness of the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 82-84)

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 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 70, 85)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2008 (Case R 518/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Tubesca and Tubos del Mediterráneo, SA.

Information relating to the case

>lt>2

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Tubesca 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 25, 33-34, 57, 66-67

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 (Case R 1008/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

Information relating to the case

>lt>7

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 24 September 2009 (Case R 1008/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders ATB Norte, SL, Bricocenter Italia and OHIM each to bear their own costs incurred during the proceedings before the General Court.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Trade marks to be refused under the Paris Convention

–

Protection of emblems of States and international organisations (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(h)) (see paras 24-25,29-30

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 (Case R 1361/2008-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing the coat of arms of the house of Hanover.

Information relating to the case

>lt>7

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ernst August Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg 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 para. 95

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 May 2009 (Case R 401/2008-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH and Omnicare, Inc.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Omnicare, Inc. 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 22, 31, 55, 58-60

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2009 (Case R 1143/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Nokia Corp. and NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Surrender, revocation and invalidity

–

Absolute grounds of invalidity

–

Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 28-31

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 230/2007-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Rügen Fisch AG and Schwaaner Fischwaren GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Rügen Fisch AG to bear the costs.