ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 2 September 2020 –

IR v Commission

(Case T‑131/20)

(Civil service – Officials – Rights and obligations of officials – Secondment in the interests of the service – Article 37, first paragraph, heading (a), first indent, of the Staff Regulations – Article 38 of the Staff Regulations – Refusal to extend a secondment – Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials – Rights of the defence)

1. Actions brought by officials – Action against a decision rejecting a complaint – Effect – Disputed measure referred to the Court – Exception – Decision not confirmatory in character – Account taken of the reasoning therein (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 29, 30)

2. Actions brought by officials – Pleas in law – Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons – Separate ground from the one concerning substantive legality (Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.) (see paras 40, 41, 48)

3. Officials – Secondment in the interest of the service – Extension of a secondment – Administration’s discretion – Administration's duty to have regard for the interests of officials – Account taken of the interests of the staff member concerned – Judicial review – Limits (Staff Regulations, Arts 37, first para. (a) and Art. 38(b)) (see paras 62-66, 77)

4. Officials – Secondment in the interest of the service – Extension of a secondment – Observance of the rights of the defence – Obligation to hear the person concerned before adopting a measure adversely affecting him – Scope – Infringement – Consequences (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2); Staff Regulations, Arts 37, first para. (a) and 38(b)) (see paras 98-106, 111-113)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of the Commission of 2 July 2019 rejecting the request of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) that the applicant’s secondment within its services should be extended for an additional year and, second, of the decision of 23 January 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint brought against the decision of 2 July 2019.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 2 July 2019 rejecting the request of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) that IR’s secondment within its services be extended for an additional year;
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

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))

(see para. 26)
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 March 2021 –

Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO – Sanolie (SANOLIE)

(Case T‑175/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark SANOLIE – Earlier national word mark SANODIN – 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))

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 SANOLIE and SANODIN

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 34, 43, 44, 53, 67, 75, 83, 89, 104, 105)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2020 (Case R 2405/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Sanolie.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 – Applicant’s knowledge that a third party is using an identical or similar sign – Intention of the applicant – Degree of legal protection of the signs at issue – 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 43, 44, 48, 50, 51)
EU trade mark – Effects of the EU trade mark – Rights conferred by a trade mark – Right to prohibit the use of the mark – Sign used for identical or similar goods or services without due cause which takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 25(1)(e); Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 9(2)(c))

(see para. 40)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2021 –

Makk v EUIPO – Ubati Luxury Cosmetics (PANTA RHEI)

(Case T‑501/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark PANTA RHEI – Earlier EU word mark PANTA RHEI – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the goods – 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 19-21, 28, 54, 56, 60)

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 – Word marks PANTA RHEI and PANTA RHEI (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 29, 36, 42, 46, 53, 55, 59-61)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2020 (Case R 2337/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ubati Luxury Cosmetics and Mr Makk.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 1 September 2021 –

Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO – Vieta Audio (Vita)

(Case T‑561/20)

(EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark Vita – Genuine use of the mark – Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered)

1. 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)) (see paras 50-53, 59)

2. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Word mark Vita (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 58, 60-63, 69-71, 78, 79, 81, 88, 89)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2020 (Case R 425/2020-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Vieta Audio and Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier unregistered mark which is well-known in a Member State – Well-known trade mark – Meaning – Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(2)(c); Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Art. 6bis; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 19(2)(b))

(see paras 42-44)
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Considered of Court's own motion – Consideration of its own motion by the General Court of a plea in law not relied on by the applicant concerning the substantive legality of the contested decision – Precluded

(Art. 263 TFEU; 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. 35)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2021 –

Setarcos Consulting v EUIPO (Blockchain Island)

(Case T‑523/20)

(EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark Blockchain Island – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (2) 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 14, 15)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Marks consisting of advertising slogans – Distinctive character – Application of specific criteria for assessment – Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 17)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Marks consisting of advertising slogans – Laudatory promotional formula (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 20)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Marks consisting of advertising slogans – Slogan with a fantasy character (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 19)

5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Assessment of distinctive character – Criteria – Perception of the trade mark by the relevant public – Attention level of the public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 28)

6. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Word mark Blockchain Island (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 39, 42-44, 47-53, 55, 57, 62, 67-69)

7. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Trade mark made up of several elements – Possible for the competent authority to examine each of the elements making up the trade mark – Need to take account of the overall perception of the combination by the relevant public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 37)

8. EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Legality – Examination by the EU Courts – Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001) (see para. 46)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2020 (Case R 2806/2019-5), regarding an application for registration of the word sign Blockchain Island as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – No obligation to inform the parties of the judicial remedies available and of the time limits

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 68 and 104; Commission Regulation No 2018/625, Art. 68)

(see para. 36)
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law not set out in the application – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))

(see para. 13)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 October 2021 –

Jiruš v EUIPO – Nile Clothing (Racing Syndicate)

(Case T‑356/20)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark Racing Syndicate – Earlier international word mark SYNDICATE – Submission of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action brought against a decision by the Cancellation Division of EUIPO – Examination by the Board of Appeal – Scope – Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Account taken – Discretion of the Board of Appeal – Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95(2); Commission Regulation 2018/625, Art. 27(4)) (see paras 23-25)

2. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 33, 34, 76)

3. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment – Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 38, 47)

4. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 55, 56, 62)

5. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see para. 61)

6. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative mark Racing Syndicate and word mark SYNDICATE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 77-80)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 March 2020 (Case R 1488/2019-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Nile Clothing and Mr Jiruš.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Procedure – Time limits – Extension of time limit on account of distance – Application to the bringing of an action against a decision of EUIPO

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 60; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(5))

(see paras 32, 33)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2021 –

KO v Commission

(Case T‑389/20)

(Civil service – Members of the temporary staff – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations – Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance – Habitual residence – Period of training)

1. Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Subject matter – Conditions for granting – No habitual residence or main occupation in the Member State of employment during the reference period – Burden of proof (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)) (see paras 17-21)

2. Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting – No habitual residence or main occupation in the Member State of employment during the reference period – Concept of habitual residence – Period of university studies and training followed by a period of employment – Rebuttable presumption of the intention to transfer the habitual residence – Information needed for an assessment – Degree of integration in the Member State of employment (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a)) (see paras 26, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43)

3. Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting – Various non-successive contracts concluded between the member of staff and the institutions – Determination of entitlement to the expatriation allowance upon each entry into service – Account taken of previous decisions awarding the expatriation allowance – Precluded (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a)) (see para. 45)

4. Officials – Administration’s duty to have regard for the interests of officials – Limits – Interpretation of a provision of the Staff Regulations running counter to its wording – Not permissible (see para. 50)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 18 October 2019 refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 – Identical number of letters composing two word marks – Presence of several letters in the same order (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 27, 29, 30, 35)
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Modification of the terms of the dispute as brought before the Board of Appeal – Not permissible

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188)

(see para. 21)
Energy – Ecodesign requirements for energy-related products – Directive 2009/125 – Implementing measures – Ban on halogenated flame retardants in the enclosure and stand of electronic displays – Prohibition adopted by the Commission – Whether permissible – Failure to take account of the scope and effectiveness of other provisions of EU law – None

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/125, Art. 15 and Annex I, points 1.1(a), (b) and (f), 1.2(d) and (e), and 1.3(d), (f) and (j); Commission Regulation 2019/2021, Recital 15, Art. 3 and Annex II, point D.4)

(see paras 30-50, 54-57, 61-67)
Officials – Members of the contract staff – Classification – Types of duties and corresponding function groups – Assigning duties beyond a staff member’s function group – Claim by another staff member against a termination decision based on his or her conduct towards the first staff member – Rejection

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 80(2))

(see paras 56-58, 64)
State aid – Examination of complaints – Obligations of the Commission – Preliminary examination phase – Obligation to close that phase by way of decision – Scope – Decision establishing whether the measure at issue constitutes existing aid – Decision including an implicit refusal to open the formal procedure – Judicial review – Limits

(Art. 108(1) and (2) TFEU; Council Regulation No 2015/1589, Arts 4(2) to (4) and 15(1))

(see paras 31-34)
2.

Officials – Organization of departments – Assignment of staff – Transfer from one place of employment to another – Regime put in place by the Parliament – More favourable treatment of divorced or separated parents than of married parents – Non-comparable situations – Breach of the principle of equal treatment – None (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 7) (see paras 96-99)
Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender – Obligation to communicate, following a written request, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the tenderer – Obligation on the awarding authority to provide a detailed comparative analysis of the tender accepted and the tender of the unsuccessful tenderer – None – Account taken, by way of reasoning, of the replies of an institution to the requests of a discarded tenderer – Limits

(Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2018/1046, Art. 170(2) and (3)(a) and Annex I, Section 31)

(see paras 76-80, 82, 89)
European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya – Scope of the review – Exclusion of matters brought to the knowledge of the institution after the adoption of the contested decision

(Council Decisions (CFSP) 2015/1333, Annexes II and IV, (CFSP) 2020/1483 and (CFSP) 2021/1251; Council Regulations No 2016/44, Annex III, 2020/1481 and 2021/1241)

(see paras 51, 52, 55, 56)
40

In the decision rejecting the complaint, the President of the Parliament stated the following: ‘It is apparent from the file and in particular from your client’s statements that she followed the general instruction inherent in her role, which was to progress the financial dossiers submitted to her, without giving substantive consideration to them, against a background of systematic use of exception procedures. Furthermore, your client has stated that she felt that her superiors required her to finish the work begun by her colleagues, that the Executive Director had been very insistent in pushing for the projects to be implemented by September 2017, and that he had wanted to expedite the procedures at all costs. It follows that there were orders within the meaning of Article 21a of the Staff Regulations. Your client, who is a lawyer by training, ought to have appreciated, on reading Article 104 of the financial regulation (Regulation No 966/2012) and Article 134(1)(c) of the rules of application of the financial regulation, as applicable at the time of the events in question (Regulation No 1268/2012), of the irregularities and their potential consequences. As a lawyer, she ought to have been familiar with the principle of legal interpretation under which exceptions to general rules are to be interpreted narrowly. Article 104 of the financial regulation is to be read in conjunction with Article 134(1)(c) of the rules of application referred to above, which uses the phrases “in so far as is strictly necessary” and “for reasons of extreme urgency brought about by unforeseeable events”, which ought to have alerted your client, especially as she was aware that there had been 36 exception notes in 2016, evidencing a systematic use that is difficult to reconcile with the wording of those two provisions. …’
1.

EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Review of the legal classification given to the facts of the dispute – Review of the assessment by the Board of Appeal of the likelihood of confusion – Findings not challenged as regards the factors that are essential to the analysis of that likelihood of confusion – Effect (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72) (see para. 19)