do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-377/12: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Olivar Del Desierto (OLEOSPA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark OLEOSPA — Earlier Benelux word marks SPA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, olive oil, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015127EN.01002001.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/20





Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Olivar Del Desierto (OLEOSPA)
(Case T-377/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark OLEOSPA - Earlier Benelux word marks SPA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 127/27)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by V. Melgar, subsequently by V. Melgar and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Olivar Del Desierto, SL (Almería, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 June 2012 (Case R 135/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and Olivar Del Desierto, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

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 22 June 2012 (Case R 135/2011-4), in so far as it dismisses the opposition in respect of cosmetic products, falling within Class 3 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;










2.


Orders OHIM to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.
Case T-227/13: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Bayer Intellectual Property v OHIM — Interhygiene (INTERFACE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark INTERFACE — Earlier Community word mark Interfog — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015127EN.01002202.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/22





Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Bayer Intellectual Property v OHIM — Interhygiene (INTERFACE)
(Case T-227/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark INTERFACE - Earlier Community word mark Interfog - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 127/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH (Monheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, A. Schifko and, subsequently, D. Walicka, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Interhygiene GmbH (Cuxhaven, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2013 (Case R 1688/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Interhygiene GmbH and Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.
Case C-77/14: Order of the President of the Court of 27 February 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2015-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, infringement of EU law, reimbursement of aid








C_2015213EN.01002004.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/20





Order of the President of the Court of 27 February 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-77/14) (1)

(2015/C 213/33)
Language of the case: Greek
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
Case C-99/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Sala de lo Civil) (Spain) lodged on 27 February 2015 — Christian Liffers v Producciones Mandarina, S.L. and Gestevisión Telecinco, S.A.
Date: 2015-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, damages, intellectual property, interpretation of the law








C_2015171EN.01001801.xml










26.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Sala de lo Civil) (Spain) lodged on 27 February 2015 — Christian Liffers v Producciones Mandarina, S.L. and Gestevisión Telecinco, S.A.
(Case C-99/15)
(2015/C 171/21)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo (Sala de lo Civil)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Christian Liffers

Defendants: Producciones Mandarina, S.L. and Gestevisión Telecinco, S.A.

Question referred







1.


May Article 13(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights be interpreted as meaning that the party injured by an intellectual property infringement who claims damages for pecuniary loss based on the amount of royalties or fees that would be due if the infringer had requested authorisation to use the intellectual property right in question cannot also claim damages for the moral prejudice suffered?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.