ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 –

gastivo portal v EUIPO — La Fourchette (Depiction of a fork on a green background)

(Case T‑267/19)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark depicting a fork on a green background — Earlier EU figurative mark gastivo — Relative ground for refusal — No 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 17, 18, 42)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 19)

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 concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26)

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 mark depicting a fork on a green background and figurative mark gastivo (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 39-41, 45-47)

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 — Figurative marks without verbal elements — Phonetic comparison (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 38)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2019 (Case R 1211/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between gastivo portal and La Fourchette.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 September 2019 –

Orkla Foods Danmark v EUIPO (PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD)

(Case T‑34/19)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD — 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 — Meaning — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 18)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Meaning (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 17)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Composite mark — Taking into account the overall perception of the mark by the relevant public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 20)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Figurative mark PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21-27, 32)

5. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Examination by the EU judicature — Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 31)

6. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(2)) (see para. 37)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2018 (Case R 309/2018-2), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 –

Nosio v EUIPO (BIANCOFINO)

(Case T‑54/19)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark BIANCOFINO — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence) (see paras 16, 17)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Definition (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 28)

3. 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 29-31)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Word mark BIANCOFINO (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 41, 46, 47, 54)

5. 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)

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 — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see paras 49-51)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2018 (Case R 2434/2017-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign BIANCOFINO as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 February 2020 –

Pierre Balmain v EUIPO (Representation of a lion’s head encircled by rings forming a chain)

(Case T‑332/19)

(EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a lion’s head encircled by rings forming a chain — 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 — Definition — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17-19)

2. 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 20)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark constituted by the shape of the product — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21-24)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Figurative mark consisting of the two-dimensional representation of a product — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 25)

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 30, 31)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Figurative mark representing a lion’s head encircled by rings forming a chain (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 38, 40, 44, 56-58)

7. 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see paras 52-55)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2019 (Case R 1224/2018-5), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a lion’s head encircled by rings forming a chain as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 March 2020 –

Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — Golden Frog (CHAMELEON)

(Case T‑312/19)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark CHAMELEON — Earlier international and national word marks CHAMELEON — Relative ground for refusal — No 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 19, 20)

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 CHAMELEON and CHAMELEON (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 28-35, 37, 38)

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 — Complementary nature of the goods or services (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2019 (Case R 1551/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Wilhelm Sihn jr. and Golden Frog.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 — Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries — Decisions not binding EU bodies (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see paras 40, 41)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 May 2020 –

View v EUIPO (CREATE DELIGHTFUL HUMAN ENVIRONMENTS)

(Case T‑49/19)

(EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CREATE DELIGHTFUL HUMAN ENVIRONMENTS — Trade mark consisting of an advertising slogan — 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 — Definition (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 19)

2. 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 18)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Definition — Criteria for assessment — Recognition of the distinctiveness of the sign not subject to a finding of a certain level of creativity or linguistic or artistic imagination (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 34, 35)

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 — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 22, 31, 32)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Word mark CREATE DELIGHTFUL HUMAN ENVIRONMENTS (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 28, 29, 36)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 (Case R 1625/2018-2), concerning the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark CREATE DELIGHTFUL HUMAN ENVIRONMENTS.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 July 2020 –

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries v EUIPO (Weniger Migräne. Mehr vom Leben.)

(Case T‑697/19)

(EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark Weniger Migräne. Mehr vom Leben. – 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 – Meaning – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 13, 14)

2. 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 para. 19)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Word mark Weniger Migräne. Mehr vom Leben. (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 28, 30, 31)

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 – Distinctive character – Application of specific criteria for assessment – Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26)

5. 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 para. 27)

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 – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 36)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 August 2019 (Case R 779/2019-5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Weniger Migräne. Mehr vom Leben. as an EU trade mark.

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 identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment

(Regulation 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 16, 17, 60, 64, 65)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 October 2020 –

X-cen-tek v EUIPO – Altenloh, Brinck & Co. (PAX)

(Case T‑847/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark PAX – Earlier EU and international figurative marks SPAX – Relative ground for refusal – Dominant element – No counteraction – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Application of the law ratione temporis)

1. Acts of the institutions – Temporal application – Procedural rules – Substantive rules – Distinction (see para. 20)

2. Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Clear and precise statement of the pleas relied on – Flexible interpretation (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 – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 28, 122, 123)

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 mark PAX and figurative marks SPAX (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 90, 117, 119, 125-128)

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 between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 46, 57)

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 No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 75, 76, 83-85, 101, 104)

7. 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. 100)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 September 2019 (Case R 2324/2018-2) regarding opposition proceedings between Altenloh, Brinck & Co. and X-cen-tek.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2020 –

CU v Committee of the Regions

(Case T‑487/19)

(Civil service – Officials – Basic monthly salaries of officials recruited before 1 May 2004 – Application of a multiplication factor of less than one – Reduction of the multiplication factor – Error of law – Equal treatment – Legitimate expectations)

1. Officials – Remuneration – Transitional rules applicable after the entry into force of Regulation No 723/2004 – Promotion obtained after 1 May 2004 by an official recruited before that date – Application of a multiplication factor – Purpose and functioning of the multiplication factor (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 44 and Annex XIII, Arts 2(2) and 7(1), (2), (6) and (7); Council Regulation No 723/2004) (see paras 38-47)

2. Officials – Remuneration – Transitional rules applicable after the entry into force of Regulation No 723/2004 – Promotion obtained after 1 May 2004 by an official recruited before that date – Determination of multiplication factor – Increase in the multiplication factor occurring at the same time as a promotion – Not permissible – Increase in the multiplication factor equivalent to advancement in step – No infringement of the principle of the protection of acquired rights (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 46 and Annex XIII, Art. 7(7); Council Regulation No 723/2004) (see paras 50-53, 57)

3. Officials – Staff Regulations – Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations – Transitional regime – Administration’s discretion – Scope – Autonomy of the institutions (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 110; Council Regulation No 723/2004, recital 37) (see para. 64)

4. Officials – Equal treatment – Promotion under Article 29 and Article 45 of the Staff Regulations – Non-comparable situations (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 29 and 45) (see paras 70-73)

5. Officials – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions – Specific assurances given by the authorities (see paras 79, 80)

6. Judicial proceedings – Measures of organisation of procedure – Measures of inquiry – Discretion of the EU Courts (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 90 and 92) (see para. 85)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Committee of the Regions’ decision of 18 October 2018 promoting the applicant to grade AD 14, step 1, in so far as it set his multiplication factor at 0.9589951.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders CU and the Committee of the Regions to bear their own costs;