ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 July 2012 —Comercial Losan v OHIM —McDonalds International Property (Mc. Baby)

(Case T-466/09)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Mc. Baby — Earlier Community figurative mark Mc Kids. always quality. always fun! — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — No power to issue directions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 15)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19, 27)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 20)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative marks Mc. Baby and Mc Kids. always quality. always fun! (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 23, 24, 43, 45)

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 — Weighing the elements of similarity and difference of the signs — Objective marketing considerations to be taken into account (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 25)

6. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States — Relevance (see para. 47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2009 (Case R 1706/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd and Comercial Losan, SLU.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 November 2012 – Verband Deutscher Prädikatsweingüter v OHIM (GG)

(Case T-278/09)

‛Community trade mark — Application for the Community collective word mark GG — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 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 253 EC (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 18)

2. 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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 35, 36)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Word mark GG (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c) (see paras 40-59)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2009 (Case R 1568/2008-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign GG as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Verband Deutscher Prädikatsweingüter eV to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 November 2012 – Verband Deutscher Prädikatsweingüter v OHIM (GG)

(Case T-278/09)

‛Community trade mark — Application for the Community collective word mark GG — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 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 253 EC (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 18)

2. 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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 35, 36)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Word mark GG (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c) (see paras 40-59)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2009 (Case R 1568/2008-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign GG as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Where a decision concerning the application of the Union competition rules affects several addressees and relates to whether and how liability for the infringement can be attributed, the decision must contain an adequate statement of reasons with respect to each of the addressees, particularly those of them who, according to that decision, must bear liability for that infringement. Thus, with regard to a parent company held liable for the offending behaviour of its subsidiary, such a decision must, in principle, contain a detailed statement of reasons for imputing the infringement to that company.

As regards, more specifically, a Commission decision which relies exclusively, with respect to certain addressees, on the presumption that they actually exercised a decisive influence, the Commission is in any event required to explain adequately to those addressees the reasons why the elements of fact and of law put forward did not suffice to rebut that presumption. The Commission’s duty to state reasons for its findings on that point flows primarily from the fact that that presumption is open to rebuttal, for the purposes of which it is necessary for those concerned to produce evidence relating to the economic, organisational and legal links between the companies concerned.

In that regard, the Commission’s statement of reasons must enable the Court to exercise its review, the latter being required to assess any evidence relating to the economic and legal organisational links between the parent company and the subsidiary apt to demonstrate that the subsidiary operates independently of its parent company and that those two companies thus do not constitute a single economic entity. Such verification is required all the more since a subsidiary’s independence in implementing its commercial policy thus forms part of the set of relevant factors enabling the parent company to rebut the presumption of its decisive influence over its subsidiary, factors whose character and importance may vary depending on the specific characteristics of each individual case.

Consequently, it is incumbent upon the Commission to examine in each particular case all matters put to it concerning the said links. Moreover, even if the Commission considers that the matters put forward by the parent company are not sufficient to overturn the presumption that it influenced the conduct of its subsidiary in the market, it is nevertheless obliged to state the reasons therefor, in so far as the matters expressed are not merely irrelevant or insignificant. The obligation to state reasons, which is one of a formal nature, requires that the reasoning on which the Commission bases its conclusions appears clearly and unequivocally in the contested decision in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent Community judicature to exercise its power of review.

(see paras 72-75, 102, 106)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Müller-Boré & Partner v OHIM — Popp and Others (MBP)

(Case T‑338/09)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MBP — Earlier Community word mark ip_law@mbp. — 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) — National sign used in the course of trade mbp.de — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009)’

1. 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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 30, 80, 81)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 32)

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 — Word mark MBP and ip_law@mbp. (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 37, 61, 77, 82-84)

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 — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44-48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2009 (Case R 1176/2007‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between Eugen Popp, Wolf E. Sajda, Johannes Bohnenberger, Volkmar Kruspig and Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte, Rechtsanwälte.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 23 February 2010 – Özdemir v OHIM – Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 (James Jones)

(Case T-11/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark James Jones – Earlier Community word mark JACK & JONES – 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)) (see paras 21, 38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2008 (Case R 858/2007-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 and Mr Rahmi Özdemir.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Rahmi Özdemir Community trade mark sought: Word mark James Jones for goods in Class 25 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 1107747 of the word mark JACK & JONES for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2063437 of the word mark JACK & JONES for goods in Class 25; Benelux trade mark registration No 474622 of the word mark JACK & JONES for goods in Class 25; Denmark trade mark registration No VR 1990 06569 of the word mark JACK & JONES for goods in Class 25 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 September 2010 – adp Gauselmann v OHIM – Maclean (Archer Maclean’s Mercury)

(Case T-106/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark Archer Maclean’s Mercury – Earlier national word mark Merkur – Relative ground for refusal – No 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)) (see paras 20, 39-40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2009 (Case R 1266/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between adp Gauselmann GmbH and Archer Maclean.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Archer Maclean Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark Archer Maclean’s Mercury, for goods in Classes 9, 16 and 28 – Application No 4290227 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: adp Gauselmann GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark registration of the word mark Merkur for goods and services in Classes 6, 9, 28, 35, 37, 41 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2010 – Hoelzer v OHIM (SAFELOAD)

(Case T-315/09)

Community trade mark – Application for the figurative Community trade mark SAFELOAD – Absolute ground for refusal − Descriptive character − Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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 19, 25, 35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 June 2009 (Case R 1157/2008‑4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign SAFELOAD as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Oliver Hoelzer Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark SAFELOAD for goods in Classes 6 and 12 – Application No 6330831 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Oliver Hoelzer to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 October 2010 – Farmeco v OHIM – Allergan (BOTUMAX)

(Case T-131/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark BOTUMAX – Earlier Community word and figurative marks BOTOX – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Damage to reputation – Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. 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 46, 65-67)

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 enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 82-86, 92-101)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 February 2009 (Case R 60/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Allergan Inc. and Farmeco AE Dermokallyntika.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Farmeco AE Dermokallyntika Community trade mark sought: Word mark BOTUMAX for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 16 – Application No 3218237 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Allergan Inc. Mark or sign cited in opposition: Various Community and national trade mark registrations of the word mark or the sign BOTOX for goods and services in Classes 5, 16, and 42, respectively Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled; application for Community trade mark sought dismissed in part





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2010 – Amen Corner v OHIM – Comercio Electrónico Ojal (SEVE TROPHY)

(Case T-192/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark SEVE TROPHY – Earlier Community figurative marks Seve Ballesteros Trophy and SEVE TROPHY – Relative grounds for refusal – No similarity of 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) – No unfair advantage taken of or detriment caused to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier marks – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Admissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c); Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see para. 29)

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 52-59)

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 enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 66-79)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2009 (Case R 462/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Amen Corner, SA and Comercio Electrónico Ojal, SL.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Comercio Electrónico Ojal, SL Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark including the verbal component SEVE TROPHY for goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25, 28, 35 and 41 – Application No 4617213 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Amen Corner, SA Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative trade marks SEVE TROPHY and Seve Ballesteros Trophy (Nos 1541226, 1980341, 2068682 and No 3846235) for goods and services in Classes 3, 14, 25, 28, 35 and 41 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed under Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) (replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1); opposition partially upheld under Article 8(1)(b) of the same regulation Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld in part





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 – Cybergun v OHIM – Umarex Sportwaffen (AK 47)

(Case T-419/09)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark AK 47 – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

1. 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)

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

Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: Word mark AK 47 for goods in Class 28 – Community trade mark No 4528378 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Cybergum SA Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Umarex Sportwaffen GmbH & Co. KG Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity of the mark concerned Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division and declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;