ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 December 2020 –

Production Christian Gallimard v EUIPO – Éditions Gallimard (PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD)

(Case T‑863/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD – Earlier EU word marks GALLIMARD – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Conceptual comparison – Surnames – Independent distinctive role – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21, 139-141)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26, 35, 36)

3. EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Partial use – Effect – Concept of ‘part of the goods or services’ covered by the registration (Council Regulation 207/2009, Art. 57(2) and (3)) (see paras 33, 34)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 marks PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD and GALLIMARD (Council Regulation 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39, 42, 48, 53, 58, 64, 65, 87, 93, 98, 113, 124, 134, 150)

5. EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Legality – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice (see paras 57, 63)

6. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 – Composite mark (Council Regulation 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 68, 69, 73-76, 90, 96, 103, 105, 131, 147)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2019 (Case R 2316/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Éditions Gallimard la nouvelle revue française éditions de la nouvelle revue française and Production Christian Gallimard.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Production Christian Gallimard to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);
Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Damage of a continuing nature – Date to be taken into consideration

(Art. 340, second paragraph, TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53, first para.)

(see paras 24, 25)
Action for annulment – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution – Inadmissibility – Infringement of the right to effective judicial protection – None

(Arts 6(1), third para. and 19(1) TEU; Arts 263, fourth para., 264, 266, 267 and 277 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 52(7))

(see paras 50-55)
Actions brought by officials – Pleas in law – Plea in law alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty – Reliance on the inability to understand the procedure for updating the correction coefficients – Rejection

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 64 and 65 and Annex XI)

(see paras 88-92)
EU law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions – Specific assurances given by the authorities – Compliance of the assurances with the applicable rules

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 17; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 51(1))

(see paras 91, 94-96, 102)
Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Concept of ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Any measure of general application other than legislative acts – Commission Regulation renewing approval of an active substance as a candidate for substitution in accordance with Regulation No 1107/2009 – Included – Act not entailing implementing measures within the meaning of that provision of the Treaty

(Arts 263, fourth para. and 289(1) to (3) TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1107/2009, Arts 20(1) and 79(3); Commission Regulations Nos 2018/1981 and 2015/408; Council Decision 1999/468, Arts 5 and 7)

(see paras 46, 47, 51-53)
Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Placing of plant protection products on the market – Regulation No 1107/2009 – Approval of an active substance – Burden of proof on the applicant – Applicability in the context of a procedure for the renewal of the approval of an active substance

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1107/2009, Art. 4(1) to (3))

(see paras 50, 51)
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Revocation proceedings – Facts and evidence not submitted within the prescribed time limit – Account taken – Discretion of the Board of Appeal

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95(2); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51(1)(a); Commission Regulations No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 40(3) and (5), and No 2018/625, Art. 27(4))

(see paras 30-35, 67, 71, 73)
55

The institution’s sole task, when the insured person or his or her dependants ask the Medical Committee to give its opinion, is to define the terms of reference provided to the committee. Those terms of reference must refer to that committee the medical questions raised both by the report of the doctor representing the insured person and, where appropriate, by any other relevant medical reports submitted by the insured person, in accordance with Article 22(2) of the Insurance rules, pursuant to Article 20(2) of those rules. The medical reports submitted for that purpose, including those which may have been drawn up by doctors other than the doctor representing the insured person on the Medical Committee, set out the medical questions that those doctors intend to raise in order to contest the draft decision of the Appointing Authority taken on the basis of the conclusions of the institution’s doctor. The reference in Article 22(2) of the Insurance rules to the relevant medical reports submitted under Article 20(2) of those rules cannot be interpreted as conferring on the institution responsible for defining the terms of reference provided to the Medical Committee the right to distinguish, for the purposes of their disclosure to that committee, only those reports which it considers relevant from other reports, without negating the effectiveness of the first sentence of Article 22(3) of the Insurance rules. The relevant medical reports submitted in accordance with Article 22(2) of the Insurance rules, pursuant to Article 20(2) of those rules, are in fact those which the insured person or those entitled under him or her considered necessary to disclose to the doctor or doctors designated by the institution for the purposes of applying the provisions of the Insurance rules. It is therefore up to the insured person or those entitled under him or her alone to assess the relevance of the medical reports in question.
54

For the purposes of determining the scope of authorisation of a medicinal product in the European Union, it must be recalled, first of all, that, under the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), ‘no medicinal product may be placed on the market of a Member State unless an [MA] has been issued by the competent authorities of that Member State in accordance with this Directive or an authorisation has been granted in accordance with Regulation [No 726/2004]’. The second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of that directive provides, in the case where a medicinal product has been granted an initial marketing authorisation in accordance with the first subparagraph, as follows: ‘Any additional strengths, pharmaceutical forms, administration routes, presentations, as well as any variations and extensions shall also be granted an authorisation in accordance with the first subparagraph or be included in the initial [MA]. All these marketing authorisations shall be considered as belonging to the same global marketing authorisation, in particular for the purpose of the application of Article 10(1).’
91

It should be noted that document WK 54/2019 INIT, which seeks to support the reasons for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, supplements, in essence, the statement of reasons set out in the initial measures, but was disclosed to the applicant only after a period of one month and three weeks, which cannot be regarded as a negligible period of time. In that regard, contrary to the Council’s contention, the period which elapsed between the date of adoption of the initial measures and the date of the applicant’s request for access cannot justify the Council’s failure to reply within a reasonable period. The Council cannot rely on the period which elapsed before the applicant requested access to the documents concerning it in order to justify the period within which it itself actually granted the request for access. However, as the Council stated at the hearing, there are internal deadlines within the Council for obtaining approval from various bodies in order to send documents. It is true that those internal deadlines must be in line with the case-law referred to in paragraphs 73 and 89 above, in order for the evidence which has been produced and which seeks to support the restrictive measures against a person or entity to be disclosed to that person or entity in sufficient time to enable it to assert its rights before the EU judicature.
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU

(Art. 296 TFEU; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), First sentence)

(see para. 26)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2021 –

Golvabia Innovation v EUIPO (MaxWear)

(Case T‑99/20)

(EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark MaxWear – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Concept – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 22-25, 28)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Mark devoid of distinctive character – Word mark MaxWear (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 30-33)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2019 (Case R 888/2019-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MaxWear as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 May 2021 –

Capella v EUIPO – Cobi.bike (GOBI)

(Case T‑286/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark GOBI – Earlier EU figurative mark COBI – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Relevant public)

1. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18-20, 38, 65)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 22)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 GOBI and figurative mark COBI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 36, 40, 49, 50, 52, 60-62, 64, 68, 71, 73)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 45, 46, 48)

5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 – Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 42)

6. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Whether conceptual differences may neutralise visual or aural similarities – Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 70)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2020 (Case 1685/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Cobi.bike and Capella.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
1.

EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Concept – Criteria for assessment – Recognition of the distinctive character of the sign not subject to a finding of a certain level of linguistic or artistic creativity or imaginativeness (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 22)
4.

EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed – Distinctive character of a first name and a surname (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32-34)
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Overlap of the scope of the grounds set out in Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c))

(see para. 59)
European Parliament – Rules on costs and indemnities of MEPs – Parliamentary assistance allowances – Check relating to the use of parliamentary assistance expenses – Burden of proof

(Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament concerning implementing measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament, Arts 33(1) and (2), and 68)

(see paras 43-47, 57, 58, 94)
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Proof of use – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment – Requirement of solid and objective evidence

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1) and 51(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 22(3) and 40(5))

(see paras 22-25, 35, 53, 54, 59, 81, 83, 99, 100, 117, 120)
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Abstract statement – Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see para. 59)
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Application for compensation for damage allegedly caused by an EU institution – Factors enabling identification of the conduct of which the institution is accused, the causal link and the reality and certainty of the damage caused

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d) and (f))

(see paras 38, 49)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 15 September 2021 – MHCS v EUIPO – Lidl Stiftung (Shade of the colour orange)

(Case T‑274/20)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark depicting a shade of the colour orange – Absolute ground for refusal – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Examination of the facts of the EUIPO’s own motion – Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Nature of the mark – Colour mark – Right to be heard – Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to the proceedings – Persons whose claims are not upheld by a decision – Decision referring the case back to the lower department for further prosecution (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(4)) (see paras 23, 24)

2. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion – Invalidity proceedings concerning absolute grounds for refusal – Examination restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided – Well-known facts taken into account (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7 and 95(1)) (see paras 32, 33, 38)

3. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Decisions of EUIPO – Observance of the rights of the defence – Scope of the principle (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), second sentence) (see para. 46)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2020 (Case R 2392/2018-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. & MHCS.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 February 2020 (Case R 2392/2018-1);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by MHCS;
EU trade mark – Duration, renewal, alteration and division of the mark – Renewal of the mark – Time limits – No renewal of the mark by its proprietor within the prescribed period – Revocation of the trade mark – Application for restitutio in integrum – Duty of care – Obligation to verify whether tax has been paid

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 53(3) and (8) and 104(1))

(see paras 31, 32, 34-37)
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 October 2021 –

St. Hippolyt v EUIPO – Elephant (Strong like nature)

(Case T‑352/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark Strong like nature – Earlier EU figurative mark STRONG NATURE – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 17, 61, 62)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 Strong like nature and STRONG NATURE (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 29-32, 48, 51-54, 58, 66-68, 70)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 at issue – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 38)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2020 (Case R 1909/2019-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Preduzeće za proizvodnju, unutrašnju i spoljnu trgovinu Elephant and St. Hippolyt Holding.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;