ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2018 –

Cotécnica v EUIPO — Mignini & Petrini (cotecnica MAXIMA)

(Case T‑136/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU figurative mark cotecnica MAXIMA — Earlier national figurative mark MAXIM Alimento Superpremium — 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, 21, 74, 75, 78)

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—Determination of the dominant elements (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 26-28, 52, 56, 71)

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 marks cotecnica MAXIMA and MAXIM Alimento Superpremium (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 43, 51, 63, 79, 89)

4. EU trade mark—Decisions of the Office—Principle of equal treatment—Principle of sound administration—EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice—Principle of legality—Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 49)

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—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark—Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 76)

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—Criteria for assessment—Coexistence of two marks on a given market—Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 84-86)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2016 (Case R 853/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mignini & Petrini and Cotécnica.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
As regards Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, it is settled case-law that there is ‘genuine use’, within the meaning of that provision, of a trade mark where the mark is used in accordance with its essential function, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services for which it is registered, in order to create or preserve an outlet for those goods or services; genuine use does not include token use for the sole purpose of preserving the rights conferred by the mark.

However, the fact that a mark is used in order to create or preserve an outlet for the goods or services for which it is registered and not for the sole purpose of preserving the rights conferred by the mark is not sufficient reason to conclude that there is a ‘genuine use’ within the meaning of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. It is equally indispensable that the mark be used in accordance with its essential function.

As regards individual marks, the essential function is to guarantee the identity of origin of the goods or services designated by the mark to the consumer or end user by enabling him, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the goods or services from others which have another origin. For the trade mark to be able to fulfil its essential role in the system of undistorted competition which the Treaty seeks to establish and maintain, it must offer a guarantee that all the goods or services bearing it have been manufactured or supplied under the control of a single undertaking which is responsible for their quality.

The requirement, when applying Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, of use in accordance with the essential function of indicating origin reflects the fact that, while a mark may, admittedly, also be used to fulfil other functions, such as that of guaranteeing the quality of that product or service or that of communication, investment or advertising, it is nevertheless subject to the sanctions provided for in that regulation where it has not been used in accordance with its essential function for an uninterrupted period of five years. In that case, the rights of the proprietor of the mark are declared to be revoked, in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, unless he is able to invoke proper reasons for failing to make use of the mark in a way that enables it to fulfil its essential function.

(see paras 42-45)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 September 2018 –

Medisana v EUIPO (happy life)

(Case T‑457/17)

(EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark happy life — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(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 any distinctive character—Meaning—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15-17, 39)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Marks constituted of advertising slogans—Distinctive character—Application of specific criteria for assessment—Not permissible (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Marks constituted of advertising slogans—Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 22)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Marks constituted of advertising slogans—Slogan with a fantasy character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 21)

5. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Word mark happy life (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 31, 43, 46)

6. EU trade mark—Decisions of the Office—Principle of equal treatment—Principle of sound administration—EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice—Principle of legality (see para. 45)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2017 (Case R 1965/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign happy life as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Community designs—Ground for invalidity—No individual character—Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design—Global assessment of all the elements of the prior design

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and (2) and 25(1)(b))

(see paras 18, 20, 36)
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. 46)
2.

Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Global assessment of all the elements of the prior design (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1)(b) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 41, 42)
EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Examination of the grounds for refusal having regard to each of the products 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 paras 34-36)
Agriculture — EAGF and EAFRD financing — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Financial correction — Implementation of two financial corrections under distinct provisions involving different checks — Lawfulness — Breach of principle of proportionality — None

(Council Regulations No 1290/2005, Art. 17 and No 73/2009, Art. 8; Commission Regulation No 883/2006, Art. 9(2)(b))

(see paras 63-66)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 September 2018 –

Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)

(Case T‑328/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BBQLOUMI — Prior EU collective word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Rejection of the opposition — 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 25, 37, 56-58)

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 paras 26, 27)

3. EU trade mark — EU collective marks — EU collective marks coming within Article 66(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Essential function — Guarantee of the collective origin of the goods sold under the EU collective mark — Geographical indication as a name identifying a product originating in a specific geographical area (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 4 and 66(2) and (3)) (see para. 35)

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 — Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 60, 62, 68)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark BBQLOUMI — Collective word mark HALLOUMI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 69-72)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2017 (Case R 497/2016-4), concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and M. J. Dairies.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Privileges and immunities of the European Union — Members of the European Parliament — Immunity in respect of opinions expressed and votes cast in the performance of their duties — Definition of opinion expressed in the performance of duties — Application in the context of criminal proceedings against a Member of the Parliament — Need for a direct and obvious link between the opinion expressed and the parliamentary duties

(Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, Arts 8 and 9)

(see paras 16-22)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 October 2018 –

Next design+produktion v EUIPO — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuuna)

(Case T‑533/17)

(European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark — Earlier EU word marks NANU and NANU-NANA — Relative ground for refusal — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001] — Complementarity of the goods — Principles of autonomy and independence of the EU trade mark — Principles of compliance with the law and sound administration — Legal certainty)

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 16-18, 101, 102)

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 — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 20)

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 nuuna and word marks NANU and NANU-NANA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 29, 38, 47, 53, 74, 84, 98, 100, 109)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23-25, 34, 36, 39, 58)

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 paras 75, 76, 94)

6. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality (see paras 113, 114)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2017 (Case R 1448/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp and Next design+produktion.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — Reference to the whole of the annexes — Inadmissibility

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

(see para. 65)
Case T‑274/17

(publication by extracts)

Monster Energy Company

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MONSTER DIP — Earlier EU word and figurative marks and unregistered sign used in the course of trade, all including the word element ‘monster’ — Relative grounds 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) — No likelihood of misleading association — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No likelihood of dilution of the reputation of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber), 13 December 2018

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Figurative marks MONSTER DIP and MONSTER ENERGY — Establishment of the link between the marks — Account taken only of the goods concerned by the reputation

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5))

The finding that there is no connection between MONSTER DIP, the figurative mark applied for, and the earlier figurative mark MONSTER ENERGY in the mind of the relevant public cannot be called into question by the applicant’s argument that the Board of Appeal should also have taken into account the goods for which the earlier EU figurative mark MONSTER ENERGY was not reputed, such as the goods ‘stickers’, ‘decals’ and ‘transfers’ in Class 16 covered by that earlier mark. Indeed, the absence of reputation implies that one condition for the application of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 is not satisfied, and thus, there can be no detriment to the earlier mark in question. In other words, since the reputation of the earlier mark is a prerequisite for the existence of any of the infringements referred to in Article 8(5) of that regulation, including the detriment to the distinctive character of the earlier mark known as trade mark dilution, it follows that none of the infringements referred to in that provision can be found as regards the goods and services in relation to which the condition relating to the reputation of the earlier mark is not satisfied. Thus, it is appropriate to reject the applicant’s argument seeking to show that the Board of Appeal erred in taking into account, in order to establish the link between the marks at issue, only the goods in respect of which a reputation of the earlier mark had been demonstrated.

(see para. 82)
Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Conditions for granting — Products of sound, fair and marketable quality — Criteria for assessment — Marketability of the product — Assessment on the basis of the requirements laid down in the applicable EU legislation

(Commission Regulations No 543/2008, Arts 15(1) and 16(6), and No 612/2009, Art. 28(1))

(see paras 28-34)
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary 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. 46)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 9 April 2019 –

Aldridge and Others v Commission

(Case T‑319/17)

(Civil service — Temporary staff — OLAF — Contract for an indefinite period — Decision of the Director of OLAF establishing a one-off reclassification to the next higher grade — Request for an annual reclassification procedure to be launched — Measure of a general nature — Time-limit for bringing an action — Point from which time stars to run — Publication on the intranet — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Mandatory (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 27, 28)

2. Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official — Meaning — Measure of general scope — Action by an official directed against a decision of the appointing authority establishing a one-off reclassification to the next higher grade — Included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 42-47, 49, 51)

3. Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time when the action was lodged — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 48)

4. Actions brought by officials — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Meaning — Decision brought to the attention of staff by means of publication on the institution’s intranet site — Included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90(2) and 110(4)) (see paras 52, 54)

5. Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see para. 64)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) dated 15 July 2016 rejecting the applicants’ request seeking the implementation of an annual reclassification procedure and of the decision of the Director-General of OLAF dated 13 February 2017 rejecting the complaint brought against the decision dated 15 July 2016 and, secondly, the payment of compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicants.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Application in the context of a loan agreement for any installments falling due and remaining unpaid after the date of the application — Hypothetical circumstances not yet established — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paras 32-36)
Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Concept — Internal rules of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the procedure for selecting cases — Not included

(Art. 340, second para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1073/1999, Art. 1(3))

(see paras 56-58)
Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Imposition of an anti-dumping duty — Condition — Injury — Determination –Effect of imports on the prices of like products on the Union market — Calculation of the undercutting margin — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Limits

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Arts 1(1) and (4) and 3(2), (3), (6) and (8))

(see paras 30-36)