ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the goods or services covered by the application for registration—Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register—Scope

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1) and 75, first sentence)

(see para. 21)
Officials—Social security—Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease—Invalidity—Separate schemes—Single concept of occupational disease

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 73 and 78; Common rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, Art. 3)

(see paras 24-30)
European Parliament—Funding of political parties at the European level—Suspension of a grant in the event of irregularities committed by the recipient—Right of the beneficiary to submit observations before the decision is adopted—Time-limit—Duty to act within a reasonable time

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2004/2003)

(see paras 37, 39)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 September 2018 –

Sevenfriday v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENFRIDAY)

(Case T‑449/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SEVENFRIDAY — Earlier EU word mark SEVEN — International registration designating the European Union — Earlier figurative mark 7SEVEN — 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))

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 20-22, 67, 84)

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 of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment—Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 28, 29)

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 SEVENFRIDAY—Word mark SEVEN and figurative mark 7SEVEN (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 65, 66, 80, 85, 86)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Signs of which a trade mark may consist—Letters and numbers—Condition—Distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 4 and 7(1)(b)) (see para. 75)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2017 (Case R 2292/2016-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Seven and Sevenfriday.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Joined Cases T‑193/17 to T‑195/17

CeramTec GmbH

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office

(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a part of a prosthetic hip — Figurative EU trade mark representing a part of a prosthetic hip — EU trade mark consisting in a shade of pink — Withdrawal of applications for declarations of invalidity and closure of the invalidity proceedings — Action of the proprietor of the mark seeking the annulment of decisions closing proceedings — Inadmissibility of action before the Board of Appeal — Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 67 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 3 May 2018

An applicant must have an interest in seeing the contested measure annulled. Such an interest can be present only if the annulment of the measure is of itself capable of having legal consequences. The interest in the annulment of the contested act must be vested and present and is evaluated as at the date on which the action is brought. If the interest which an applicant claims concerns a future legal situation, the applicant must demonstrate that the prejudice to that future situation is already certain. Therefore, an applicant cannot rely on future and uncertain situations to justify its interest in applying for annulment of the contested act. (see paras 22, 31)

See text of the decision. (see paras 23-35)

Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 on the EU trade mark lays down the requirement that the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) must state reasons for its decisions. According to case-law, that obligation to state reasons has the same scope as that under Article 296 TFEU, pursuant to which the reasoning of the author of the act must be shown clearly and unequivocally, and its purpose is twofold: first, to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure taken in order to defend their rights and, second, to enable the European Union Courts to exercise their power to review the legality of the decision. (see para. 40)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 October 2018 –

Asics v EUIPO — Van Lieshout Textielagenturen (Representation of four crossing lines)

(Case T‑581/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU figurative mark representing four crossed lines — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 and Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark—Procedural provisions—Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion—Duty of diligence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 19)

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—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 36, 42, 53)

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—Figurative mark representing four crossing lines (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 5) (see paras 46-48, 63, 64)

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—High distinctiveness of the earlier mark—Irrelevant where no similarity between the marks concerned (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 56)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2017 (Case R 2129/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Asics Corporation and Van Lieshout Textielagenturen.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 October 2018 –

Unipreus v EUIPO — Wallapop (wallapop)

(Case T‑186/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark wallapop — Prior national figurative mark wala w — 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) — Similarity of the services)

1. EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision—Limits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 15)

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—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 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—Similarity between the goods or services in question—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 23)

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—Figurative marks wallapop and wala w (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 44, 49, 53, 54)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017 (Case R 2350/2015-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Unipreus and Wallapop.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017, in so far as it found that the services at issue in Case R 2350/2015-5 were different;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Unipreus, SL;
EU trade mark—Surrender, revocation and invalidity—Examination of the application—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Genuine use—Meaning—Interpretation taking account of the rationale of Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Recital 10 and Art. 57(2) and (3))

(see para. 20)
EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of commercial interests — Scope — Application to the documents of a file submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for a medicinal product — General presumption that the exception to the right of access applies — Not included

(European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), 1st indent, and No 726/2004, Arts 11, 13(3), 36, 38(3), 57(1) and (2) and 73)

(see paras 42, 44, 46, 47)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2018 –

Bopp v EUIPO (Representation of an equilateral octagon)

(Case T‑460/17)

(EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a blue octagonal frame — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark representing a blue octagonal frame (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 51-53, 63, 64, 66)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the goods or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 54-56)

3. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion — Registration of a new trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1) and 76(1)) (see para. 60)

4. EU trade mark — Decisions of EUIPO — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 65)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Decisions of national authorities not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 69)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2017 (Case R 1954/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a blue octagonal frame as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 No 207/2009

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c))

(see para. 66)
It is clear from the case-law that, first, the bodies of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) may base their decisions on well-known facts which have not been put forward by the applicant, without having to establish the accuracy of such facts, and, second, an applicant against whom EUIPO relies on such well-known facts may challenge their accuracy before the Court, EUIPO thus being, in such a situation and with regard to the principle of equality of arms, entitled to present documents to the Court in order to support the accuracy of a matter of common knowledge which was not established in the contested decision. By contrast, the applicant cannot be recognised as having the right to submit documents for the first time before the Court on the sole ground that they illustrate well-known facts which, moreover, are not alleged to have been put forward in the contested decision. Allowing such a right would limit the scope of the applicant’s obligation to provide, from the stage of the proceedings before EUIPO, all evidence in support of its pleas in law and arguments.

(see para. 19)
As regards the application of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the European Union trade mark, it should be noted that a very large number of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks are generally mixed, consumed, or indeed marketed together, either in the same establishments or as premixed alcoholic drinks. To consider that those goods should, for that reason alone, be described as similar, when they are not intended to be consumed in either the same circumstances, or in the same state of mind, or, as the case may be, by the same consumers, would put a large number of goods which can be described as ‘drinks’ into one and the same category for the purposes of the application of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Thus, it cannot be considered that an alcoholic drink and an energy drink are similar merely because they can be mixed, consumed or marketed together, given that the nature, intended purpose and use of those goods differ, based on the presence of, or absence of alcohol in their composition. Furthermore, it must be held that the undertakings which market alcoholic drinks premixed with a non-alcoholic ingredient do not sell that ingredient separately and under the same or similar mark as the premixed alcoholic drink at issue.

(see paras 80, 81)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 November 2018 –

Septona v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (welly)

(Case T‑763/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark welly — Earlier EU figurative marks Kelly’s and Kelly’s www.kellys.eu CHIPS — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — 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 No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23, 77, 82)

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. 28)

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 — Figurative mark welly — Figurative marks Kelly’s and kelly’s www.kellys.eu CHIPS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 33, 41, 55, 62, 76, 80-86)

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 between the goods or services in question — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 34)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 42)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 1525/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Intersnack Group and Septona.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 July 2017 (Case R 1525/2016-1);
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 No 207/2009

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c))

(see para. 25)
4.

EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Application to documents concerning a procedure for failure to fulfil obligations during the pre-litigation phase of the latter — General presumption that the exception applies to the right of access to all the documents on the administrative file — Whether permissible — Need for the applicability of specific legislation providing for a more restrictive framework than that of Regulation No 1049/2001 for the disclosure of the documents requested — Absence (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), third indent) (see paras 29, 30, 33, 37-39)
Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Taxation not capable of taking place until after the decision closing the proceedings

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 170)

(see para. 30)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 March 2019 –

Prim v EUIPO — Primed Halberstadt Medizintechnik (PRIMED)

(Case T‑138/17)

(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark PRIMED — Earlier national figurative marks PRIM S.A., PRiM, S.A. SUMINISTROS MEDICOS and GRUPO PRiM — Genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Right to be heard — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Submission of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Classification as new or additional evidence — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence) (see paras 25-28, 42)

2. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal brought against a decision by the Cancellation Division of EUIPO — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — No contrary provision (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 53(1)(a), 57(2) and (3), 63(2), 76(2), and 78; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 40(6)) (see paras 46-53)

3. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Power of the General Court to vary the contested decision — Limits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 63)

4. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Declaratory judgments — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2) and (3)) (see para. 67)

5. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Direction issued to the Office — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 69)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2016 (Joined Cases R 2494/2015-4 and R 163/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Prim and Primed Halberstadt Medizintechnik.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 December 2016 (Joined Cases R 2494/2015-4 and R 163/2016-4);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Prim, SA;
1.

EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Applicant in bad faith when lodging the trade mark application — Criteria for assessment — Taking into account of all relevant factors at the time of filing the application for registration — Intention of the applicant — Origin of the contested sign — Commercial logic underlying the registration of the contested sign as an EU trade mark — Chronology of events characterising the filing of the trade mark application (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 18-24, 49)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2019 –

CC v Parliament

(Case T‑248/17 RENV)

(Liability — Civil service — Recruitment — Open Competition EUR/A/151/98 — Errors committed by the European Parliament in the management of the reserve list — Material loss)

Actions brought by officials — Unlimited jurisdiction — Compensation for material harm associated with loss of opportunity — Assessment — Criteria

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91(1))

(see paras 70-76)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of various errors committed by the Parliament in the management of the reserve list of Open Competition EUR/A/151/98.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders the European Parliament to pay CC the sum of EUR 6000;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;