Orzecznictwo w zakresie prawa IP i prawa IT

Issues:
Opposition proceedings.
Relative ground for refusal.
Likelihood of confusion.

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

Findings:
No likelihood of confusion.

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

Published:
—

Issues:
Opposition proceedings.
Likelihood of confusion.
To annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2006 in Case R 227/2005-1.

Trade marks concerned:
—

Findings:
—

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

Published:
—

Issues:
—

Trade marks concerned:
E.

Findings:
—

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

Published:
—

Issues:
Action for annulment brought by the holder of the national verbal and figurative marks “CAMEL” for products classified in classes 22 and 34 against Decision R 669/2003-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 22 February 2006 annulling the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of a figurative mark containing figurative elements (camel, pyramids, palm trees) and the words “CAFÉ TORREFACTO CAMPO MAIOR CAMELO CAFÉ ESPECIAL PURO Torrefacção Camelo Lda. CAMPO MAIOR-Portugal”, for goods classified in class 30, in opposition proceedings brought by the applicant.

Trade marks concerned:

Findings:
—

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

Published:
—

Issues:
Obligations of providers of services.
Retention and disclosure of certain traffic data.
Obligation of disclosure.
Protection of the confidentiality of electronic communications.
Compatibility with the protection of copyright and related rights.
Right to effective protection of intellectual propert.

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:
—