ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 24 May 2011 – ancotel v OHIM – Acotel (ancotel.)

(Case T-408/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark ‘ancotel’ – Earlier Community figurative mark ‘ACOTEL’ – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Relevant public

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 37-39)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 June 2009 (Case R 1385/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Acotel SpA and ancotel GmbH.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: ancotel GmbH Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark ancotel for services in Classes 35 and 38 – Application No 3314424 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Acotel SpA Mark or sign cited in opposition: In particular, Italian figurative mark No 643751 and Community figurative mark No 1442268 ACOTEL for goods and services in Classes 9 and 38 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





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 19 June 2009 (Case R 1385/2008-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by ancotel GmbH;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011 – Omnicare v OHIM – Astellas Pharma (OMNICARE)

(Case T-290/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark OMNICARE – Earlier national figurative mark OMNICARE – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Similarity of the services – Genuine use of the earlier mark

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)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 May 2009 (Case R 402/2008-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH and Omnicare, Inc.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2011 – Ergo Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM – Société de développement et de recherche industrielle (ERGO)

(Case T-220/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark ERGO – Earlier Community word mark URGO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (paras 19-20, 39, 41-42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 515/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Société de développement et de recherche industrielle and Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 October 2011 – Alfastar Benelux v Council

(Case T-57/09)

Public service contracts – Tendering procedure – Provision of technical maintenance and help desk and on-site intervention services for the PCs, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council – Rejection of a tender – Duty to state reasons

1. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision, in the procedure for awarding a public services contract, to reject a tender – Assessment having regard to the information at the applicant’s disposal at the time the action was brought – Advantages of the successful tender not communicated – Inadequate statement of reasons (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 24-29, 36-43)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Injury/damage – Causal link – Annulment, for lack of reasoning, of a Council decision rejecting a tender in a public service contract procedure – Reality of the unlawfulness and the causal link depending on examination of pleas having to be directed against the decision replacing the annulled decision – Claim for compensation premature (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 45-53)

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for annulment of the Council’s decision of 1 December 2008 to reject the tender submitted by the Alfastar-Siemens consortium, composed of Alfastar Benelux SA and Siemens IT Solutions and Services SA, in response to Call for Tenders UCA/218/07 for the provision of technical maintenance – help desk and on-site intervention services for the PCs, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council (OJ 2008/S 91‑122796) and to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, for damages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the Council’s decision of 1 December 2008 to reject the tender submitted by the consortium composed of Alfastar Benelux SA and Siemens IT Solutions and Services SA, in response to Call for Tenders UCA/218/07 for the provision of technical maintenance – help desk and on-site intervention services for the PCs, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council and to award the contract to another tenderer;

2. Dismisses the claim for damages;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2011 – Dornbracht v OHIM – Metaform Lucchese (META)

(Case T-1/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for the Community word mark META – Earlier Community figurative mark METAFORM – Relative grounds for refusal – Similarity of the goods and the signs – Refusal of registration – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Likelihood of confusion

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 26, 49, 54, 59, 63-64)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2008 (Case R 1152/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Metaform Lucchese SpA and Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 – Rintisch v OHIM – Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires (PROTIACTIVE)

(Case T-152/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark PROTIACTIVE – Earlier national word and figurative marks PROTIPLUS, PROTI and PROTIPOWER – Late submission of documents – Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Concept of a provision to the contrary – Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal brought against a decision of the Opposition Division of the Office – Examination by Board of Appeal – Scope – Evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the prescribed time-limit – Account taken – Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Arts 20(1) and 50(1)) (see paras 31-33, 37-42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2009 (Case R 1661/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Bernhard Rintisch and Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2011 – Dennekamp v Parliament

(Case T-82/09)

Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to the affiliation of certain Members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme – Refusal to grant access – Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual – Article 8(b) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 – Transfer of personal data

1. European Union – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual – Scope – Obligation to assess in conformity with EU legislation on the protection of personal data – Full applicability of the provisions of Regulation No 45/2001 for any request for access to documents containing personal data (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 45/2001, Art. 8, and No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b)) (see paras 21-26, 38-40)

2. Approximation of laws – Protection of physical persons in relation to processing of personal data – Processing of those data by institutions and bodies of the Union – Request for access to documents mentioning the names of Members of the European Parliament affiliated to the additional pension scheme – Personal data – Request for access to those documents pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 – Obligation to establish the need for transfer of those data (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 45/2001, Arts 2(a), 5(b) and 8(b), and No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b)) (see paras 27-30)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Decision A(2008) 22050 of the European Parliament of 17 December 2008 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents relating to the affiliation of certain Members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Gert-Jan Dennekamp to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2012 – Würth and Fasteners (Shenyang) v Council

(Case T-162/09)

Action for annulment — Dumping — No individual concern — Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty — Actions by producers, exporters or importers of the products concerned, or by the manufacturer of original equipment — Admissibility — Conditions (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 21-28, 49, 54, 62)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty — Undertaking able to rely on its participation in the administrative procedure — Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 33-36, 58)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Interpretation, contrary to law, of the requirement of being individually concerned — Not permissible (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 47, 65)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Adolf Würth GmbH & Co. KG and Arnold Fasteners (Shenyang) Co. Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL;
32

In their first plea, the applicants state essentially that the conditions laid down in the Guidelines necessary for restructuring aid to be declared compatible with the common market are not met in this case. They divide this plea into eight parts. They submit that the following conditions are not fulfilled: first, the ‘one time, last time’ condition as laid down in points 5 and 72 to 77 of the Guidelines, according to which, in substance, restructuring aid cannot be granted in the 10 years following the grant of such aid has not be complied with; second, the condition that, in accordance with point 8 of the Guidelines, restructuring aid cannot serve to keep firms artificially alive in a sector with structural overcapacity; third, the condition, laid down in point 23 of the Guidelines, according to which the Commission must take into consideration previous unlawful aid granted and not recovered when examining the grant of restructuring aid; fourth, the condition laid down in point 33 of the Guidelines, according to which the beneficiary of restructuring aid must be ‘a firm in difficulty’; fifth, the condition set out in point 12 of the Guidelines that the beneficiary of the aid must not be a newly created firm; sixth, the condition that, in accordance with points 34 and 35 of the Guidelines, the restructuring plan must restore the long-term viability of the beneficiary; seventh, the condition, in points 38 to 40 of the Guidelines, that the compensatory measures must be proportionate to the distortion of competition caused by the aid at issue; eighth, the condition laid down in point 43 of the Guidelines according to which restructuring aid must be limited to the minimum and a real contribution from the group to which FagorBrandt belongs must be made.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 June 2012 —

Hearst Communications v OHIM — Vida Estética (COSMOBELLEZA)



(Case T-344/09)

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark COSMOBELLEZA — Earlier national and international word and figurative marks COSMO, COSMOPOLITAN, COSMOTEST, COSMOPOLITAN TELEVISION and THE COSMOPOLITAN SHOW — Non-registered marks and trade names COSMO and COSMOPOLITAN — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the marks — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 98-104)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2009 (Case R 770/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Hearst Communications, Inc. and Vida Estética, SL.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

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 19-21, 44

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 February 2010 (Case R 666/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Zitro IP Sàrl and Show Ball Informática Ltda.

Information relating to the case

>lt>12

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Zitro IP Sàrl 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 20, 23, 37, 42, 50, 63

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2010 (Case R 253/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Deutscher Raiffensenverband eV (DRV) and Austria Leasing GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deutscher Raiffeisenverband eV (DRV) 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38-40)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 36-37, 58, 60, 65)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 January 2010 (Case R 766/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Space Beach Club, SA and Miguel Ángel Flores Gómez.

Information relating to the case

>lt>17

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Space Beach Club, 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 47-49

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2010 (Case R 723/2009‑2) relating to opposition proceedings between Manuel Jacinto, L da and Stephanie Scatizza.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Stephanie Scatizza 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 30, 42-44

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2010 (Case R 1812/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Telefónica O2 Germany GmbH & Co. OHG and Loopia AB.

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 12 January 2010 (Case R 1812/2008-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Telefónica O2 Germany GmbH & Co. OHG;

3. Orders OHIM to pay the costs necessarily incurred by Telefónica O2 Germany for the purposes of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal of OHIM;

4. Orders Loopia AB to bear its own 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 23, 25, 29, 36)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the products or services covered by the application for registration – Duty to state reasons for the refusal to register – Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)) (see paras 15-18)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 January 2010 (Case R 601/2009-4) concerning an application to register the word mark “Complete” as a Community trade mark.

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 20 January 2010 (Case R 601/2009-4);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Paul Hartmann AG, including the indispensable costs incurred by the latter in the procedure before the Board of Appeal.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

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

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 47, 65, 71-74

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2010 (Case R 1441/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between The Outdoor Group Ltd and Mr Václav Hrbek.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Václav Hrbek to pay the costs.