ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2011 – ATB Norte v OHIM – Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER Città)

(Case T-482/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark BRICO CENTER Città – Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – 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 25, 33-34, 57, 66-67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2009 (Case R 1047/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bricocenter Italia Srl Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark BRICO CENTER Città in respect of services in Class 35 – Application No 4939302 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro (No 989046) and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro (No 3262623) for services in Classes 35, 37 and 39 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled and opposition dismissed in its entirety





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 28 September 2009 (Case R 1047/2008-4) 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;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 – MIP Metro v OHIM – Metronia (METRONIA)

(Case T-525/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark METRONIA – Earlier national figurative mark METRO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – 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 29, 41-42)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2009 (Case R 1315/2006‑1), concerning opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Metronia, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2011 – La Sonrisa de Carmen and Bloom Clothes v OHIM – Heldmann (BLOOMCLOTHES)

(Case T-118/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark BLOOMCLOTHES – Earlier national word mark BLOOM – 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22-23, 51-52, 55)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2009 (Case R 695/2008‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Harald Heldmann and, on the other, La Sonrisa de Carmen, SL and Bloom Clothes, SL.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders La Sonrisa de Carmen, SL and Bloom Clothes, SL to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Harald Heldmann;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 – Rintisch v OHIM – Bariatrix Europe (PROTI SNACK)

(Case T-62/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark PROTI SNACK – 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 30-32, 36-41)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2008 (Case R 740/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Bernhard Rintisch and Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
15

By decision of 17 March 2008, the Cancellation Division rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity. As the application was based on Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94, the Cancellation Division rejected it on the ground that the applicant had not adduced proof of use of the mark in relation to the earlier marks registered in the United Kingdom, following a request of proof of genuine use made by the intervener. As the application was based on Article 51(1)(b) of that same regulation, the Cancellation Division held that the applicant had not made out proof of bad faith on the part of the intervener. The Cancellation Division held that the two-month difference between the date of filing the application for registration of the American mark (25 April 1994) and that of the application for registration of Spanish mark No 1909496 (20 June 1994) ruled out the possibility of bad faith. The Cancellation Division further held that there was a continuity or ‘commercial trajectory’ uniting the intervener’s Spanish and Community marks, which was why the date of filing the registration application for the Spanish mark had been taken into consideration. In the view of the Cancellation Division, the fact that the applicant’s American mark was well known on the American market in the United States between 1991 and 1994 and between 1994 and 2002, and that that fact was brought to the intervener’s attention, had not been proven. The email correspondence between the two parties in 2006, in which the intervener fixed the sale price of the Community mark, was not conclusive proof of its bad faith. Lastly, the Cancellation Division considered that the fact that the marks were identical and related to the same scope of application did not establish bad faith.
43

None of the evidence relied on by the Commission, in the contested decision or before the Court, is capable of lessening the seriousness of those criticisms. That is the case, inter alia, as regards the handwritten record of a telephone conversation between the applicant’s sales manager and a representative of Saint-Gobain in May 2002. Neither that document nor certain telephone contacts with AGC are capable of proving that the applicant entered into an agreement with other carglass producers concerning the allocation of contracts for the delivery of various pieces of carglass for the Volkswagen Passat. However, it can be seen from the Commission file that Saint-Gobain, Pilkington and AGC had decided that the contract in question would be subject to an allocation of supplies identical to that which had taken place for the previous model of that car, including, therefore, the supply of carglass by the applicant. The fact that Volkswagen awarded the applicant a supply contract for certain pieces of carglass intended for the new Volkswagen Passat can be explained simply by the excellent quality of glass the applicant had delivered, at a competitive price, for the previous model. That decision therefore had nothing to do with any allocation of the market in which the applicant is alleged to have taken part. Moreover, that record indicates that the applicant did not participate in any agreement as regards the contract relating to the new Opel Frontera. As regards, lastly, the contract relating to Lancia Lybra (a vehicle manufactured by the Fiat group), that record shows only that Saint-Gobain reacted negatively to the applicant’s attempts to obtain that contract. However, that intimidation in no way demonstrates that the applicant was party to any agreement relating to that contract.
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, 31

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2010 (Case R 985/2009‑2) concerning registration of the sign TRUEWHITE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Cree, 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 106-108

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2009 (Case R 1666/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Marc O’Polo International GmbH and Esprit International LP.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Esprit International LP 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)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009

–

Exception

–

Acquisition of distinctive character through use (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(b) and (c), and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 34-35, 67, 69, 81

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2009 (Case R 913/2009-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Audioline GmbH and Geemarc Telecom International Ltd.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Geemarc Telecom International Ltd to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 February 2012 — Almunia Textil v OHIM — FIBA-Europe (EuroBasket)

(Case T-596/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark EuroBasket — Earlier Community figurative mark Basket — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — 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 22, 23, 46, 50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2010 (Case R 280/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Almunia Textil, SA and FIBA-Europe eV.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Almunia Textil, SA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and FIBA-Europe eV including, in respect of the latter, the unavoidable costs incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 February 2012 — Almunia Textil v OHIM — FIBA-Europe (EuroBasket)

(Case T-596/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark EuroBasket — Earlier Community figurative mark Basket — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — 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 22, 23, 46, 50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2010 (Case R 280/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Almunia Textil, SA and FIBA-Europe eV.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords



Keywords

Community trade mark

—

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

—

Absolute grounds for refusal

—

Trade marks contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(f)) (see paras 13-14, 18, 29

)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 February 2012 — Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio v OHIM — Weinkellerei Lenz Moser (SERVO SUO)

(Case T-525/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SERVO SUO — Earlier Community word mark SERVUS — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — 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 22, 60, 65)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 August 2010 (Case R 1571/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Weinkellerei Lenz Moser AG and Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 February 2012 — Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio v OHIM — Weinkellerei Lenz Moser (SERVO SUO)

(Case T-525/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SERVO SUO — Earlier Community word mark SERVUS — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — 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 22, 60, 65)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 August 2010 (Case R 1571/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Weinkellerei Lenz Moser AG and Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords



Keywords

Economic and social cohesion — Structural assistance — Union financing — Condition — Pursuit of a tangible objective within the framework of social cohesion policy (Council Regulations No 2052/88, Arts 6 to 8, and No 4253/88, Arts 8, 14, 15 and 24 to 26) (see paras 27-32)

2. Economic and social cohesion — Structural assistance — Union financing — Duty of Member States regularly to review projects financed — Decision to reduce aid for lack of evidence that expenses eligible — No infringement of the defence rights (Council Regulation No 4253/88, art. 23) (see para. 36)

3. Economic and social cohesion — Structural assistance — Commission decision — Assessment of legality by reference to information available at the time of adoption of the decision (see para. 41)

4. Economic and social cohesion — Structural assistance — Union financing — Decision to reduce aid originally granted — Irregularities not having been objected to by the Commission — Breach of principle of the protection of legitimate expectation — Conditions (see paras 45-48)
Keywords



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 51, 74

)
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, 56‑58

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2010 (Case R 223/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Industria Licorera Quezalteca, SA and Grupo Osborne, SA.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 January 2010 (Case R 223/2009‑2);

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — Fruit of the Loom v OHIM — Blueshore Management (FRUIT)

(Case T-514/10)

‛Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark FRUIT — Non-use — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the European Union Courts — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2) and (3)) (see para. 12)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the European Union Courts — Jurisdiction of the General Court — No power to issue directions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 13)

3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form which differs through factors not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Subject-matter and scope of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)(a)) (see paras 28, 29, 38)

4. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form which differs through factors not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Word mark FRUIT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 39, 40, 54-68)

5. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Assessment of the genuineness of the use of the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)) (see para. 50 )

6. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1), and Art. 78(1)(f)); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(3)) (see paras 51, 52, 55)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 August 2010 (Case R 1686/2008-4) concerning revocation proceedings between Blueshore Management SA and Fruit of the Loom, Inc.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Fruit of the Loom, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM;
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 24, 27, 28, 43, 51, 52, 71, 78, 83 ) Subject of the case Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2010 (Joined Cases R 1041/2009‑4 and R 1053/2009‑4) relating to opposition proceedings between Lactimilk SA and Nordmilch AG. Operative part Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Nordmilch AG to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2012 — Nordmilch v OHIM — Lactimilk (MILRAM)

(Case T-546/10)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MILRAM — Earlier national word and figurative marks RAM — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of goods and signs — Likelihood of confusion — 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 24, 27, 28, 43, 51, 52, 71, 78, 83)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2010 (Joined Cases R 1041/2009-4 and R 1053/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Lactimilk SA and Nordmilch AG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;