Wyrok dotyczył znaków towarowych:
PRAZOL, PREZAL

Tezy i wnioski:
56. In that regard, it should be pointed out that the finding that there was no likelihood of confusion, reached by the Board of Appeal in paragraph 12 of the contested decision, is based on a false premiss, namely that there are significant phonetic differences between the signs which outweigh the low degree of visual similarity between the marks in dispute. That assessment cannot however be accepted, since, as pointed out in paragraphs 42, 49 and 52 above, the signs in dispute are visually and phonetically very similar. The fact that the relevant public consists of end-consumers amongst others, whose level of attention can be considered to be above average, is not sufficient, given the identical nature of the goods concerned and the similarity of the signs in dispute, to rule out the possibility that those consumers might believe that the goods come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings.

Tekst wyroku:
T-95/07, Aventis Pharma SA v. OHIM.

Opublikowany:
—

Treść wyroku:
I FSK 655/07.

Opublikowany:
—

Znaki towarowe:

Wnioski:
41. To examine whether an earlier trade mark has been put to genuine use in a particular case, an overall assessment must be carried out, taking account of all the relevant factors in the case. That assessment entails a degree of interdependence between the factors taken into account. Thus, the fact that commercial volume achieved under the mark was not high may be offset by the fact that use of the mark was extensive or very regular, and vice versa. In addition, the turnover and the volume of sales of the product under the earlier trade mark cannot be assessed in absolute terms but must be looked at in relation to other relevant factors, such as the volume of business, production or marketing capacity or the degree of diversification of the undertaking using the trade mark and the characteristics of the products or services on the relevant market. As a result, the Court of Justice has stated that use of the earlier mark need not always be quantitatively significant in order to be deemed genuine. Even minimal use can therefore be sufficient to be deemed genuine, provided that it is viewed as warranted in the economic sector concerned to maintain or create a share in the market for the goods or services protected by the mark (order in Case C-259/02 La Mer Technology [2004] ECR I-1159, paragraph 21; LA MER, cited in paragraph 32 above, paragraph 57; see, by way of analogy, Ansul, cited in paragraph 21 above, paragraph 39).

Tekst wyroku:
T-131/06, Rykiel création and diffusion de modèles v. OHMI.

Opublikowany:
—

Trade marks concerned:
O orsay.

Findings:
—

Judgment text:
T-39/04, Orsay v. OHMI.

Published:
—

Trade marks concerned:
Orsay.

Findings:
—

Judgment text:
T-378/04, Orsay v. OHMI.

Published:
—

Trade marks concerned:
GALVALLOY, earlier national word mark GALVALLIA.

Findings:
No likelihood of confusion.

Judgment text:
T-189/05, Usinor v. OHMI.

Published:
—

Trade marks concerned:
—

Findings:
—

Judgment text:
T-146/06, Sanofi-Aventis v. OHMI.

Published:
—

Trade marks concerned:
E.

Findings:
—

Judgment text:
T-302/06, Hartmann v. OHMI.

Published:
—

Trade marks concerned:

Findings:
—

Judgment text:
T-128/06, Japan Tobacco v. OHMI.

Published:
—

Findings:
Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) do not require the Member States to lay down, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, an obligation to communicate personal data in order to ensure effective protection of copyright in the context of civil proceedings. However, Community law requires that, when transposing those directives, the Member States take care to rely on an interpretation of them which allows a fair balance to be struck between the various fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order. Further, when implementing the measures transposing those directives, the authorities and courts of the Member States must not only interpret their national law in a manner consistent with those directives but also make sure that they do not rely on an interpretation of them which would be in conflict with those fundamental rights or with the other general principles of Community law, such as the principle of proportionality.

Judgment text:
C-275/06, Promusicae.

Published:
—