ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 May 2019 –

Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol and CAFE DEL SOL)

(Cases T‑89/18 and T‑90/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for the EU word and figurative marks Café del Sol and CAFE DEL SOL — Earlier national figurative mark Café del Sol — Proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark — Translation — Rights of the defence — Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Decisions of EUIPO — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41, 47 and 48; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94) (see paras 29, 30)

2. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 19(2) and 50) (see paras 39-43, 47)

3. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Legality of the decision of a Board of Appeal adjudicating in opposition proceedings — Claim that defence rights infringed — Procedural irregularity — Possibility of obtaining annulment of the said decision simply by demonstrating the likelihood of a different decision in the absence of that irregularity (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95(2)) (see para. 48)

4. 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(3)) (see para. 51)

Re:

Actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 (Cases R 1095/2017-4 and R 1096/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 December 2017 (Cases R 1095/2017-4 and R 1096/2017-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Ramón Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul GmbH;

2. Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;
2.

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 — Origin and use of the sign in dispute — 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(2) and (4) and 59(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 36, 38-41, 43-45, 52)
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 2017/1001

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

(see paras 39, 40)
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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Reputation of the mark in the Member State or the EU — Use of a trade mark as part of another trade mark and reputation (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 45)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2019 –

Lupu v EUIPO — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Djili DS)

(Case T‑558/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Djili DS — Earlier national word mark DJILI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

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) and (3))

(see para. 38)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 June 2018 (Case R 2391/2017-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Lupu and Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam.

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 — 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. 22)
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 2017/1001

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

(see paras 26, 27)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 September 2019 –

Aroma Essence v EUIPO — Refan Bulgaria (washing sponge)

(Case T‑532/18)

(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a washing sponge — Earlier designs — Grounds for invalidity — Examination by the Board of Appeal of its own motion of the facts constituting disclosure — Burden of proof on the invalidity applicant — Requirements relating to the reproduction of the prior design)

1. Community designs — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion — Action for invalidity — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 63(1)) (see para. 23)

2. Community designs — Surrender and invalidity — Application for a declaration of invalidity based on the existence of an earlier design — Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 52(2); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28(1)(b)(i)(vi)) (see paras 25, 29)

3. Community designs — 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 6/2002; Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 36(1)) (see paras 39-41)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 July 2018 (Case R 1197/2017-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Aroma Essence and Refan Bulgaria.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
5.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Lack of distinctive character in relation only to certain products falling within that category not precluding recognition of lack of distinctiveness of the sign in relation to products in that category as a whole (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 59)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2019 –

BQ v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T‑66/18)

(Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Call for tenders of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Freelance translators — Selection procedure — Rejection of a tenderer’s offer — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

1. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Assessment of the duty to state reasons by reference to the circumstances of the case — No need to specify all the relevant factual and legal elements (Art. 296, second para. TFEU) (see paras 18, 19)

2. European Union public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (see para. 29)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 23 November 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender for the conclusion of a framework contract for the translation of legal texts from German into Greek.

Operative part

The Court:

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

Società agricola Giusti Dal Col v EUIPO — DMC (GIUSTI WINE)

(Case T‑678/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Application for protection of the international word mark GIUSTI WINE — Earlier national figurative mark DeGIUSTI — 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 19-21)

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 22, 29, 31, 32)

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 — 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 23, 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 — Word mark GIUSTI WINE — Word mark DeGIUSTI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42, 46, 47, 53, 56, 60)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2018 (Case R 1154/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between DMC and Società agricola Giusti Dal Col.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 September 2019 –

Manéa v CdT

(Case T‑225/18)

(Civil service — Temporary members of staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew the applicant’s contract — Withdrawal of the decision and adoption of a new decision refusing renewal with effect from the date of the first decision — Liability)

1. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Decision adopted without first giving the interested party the opportunity to comment — Infringement of the right to be heard — Consequences (see paras 31-34)

2. Officials — Organisation of departments — Assignment of staff — Administration’s discretion — Freedom to organise administrative units — Scope (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 5(3)) (see para. 62)

3. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Renewal of a fixed-term contract — Administration's discretion — Judicial review — Limits — Manifest error of assessment — Concept — Burden of proof (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Arts 2(a), 8, first para., and 47(b)) (see paras 63, 64)

4. Acts of the institutions — Withdrawal — Unlawful acts — Conditions — Effects (see paras 79, 80)

5. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link (see paras 112, 119-122)

6. 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. 113)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the CdT’s decision of 29 May 2017 not to renew the applicant’s employment contract, second, an order that the CdT is to reinstate her within the CdT, and, third, compensation for the material and non-material damage resulting from the loss of permanent employment and from the CdT’s decision of 12 November 2015 not to renew the applicant’s employment contract.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 24 October 2019 –

Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters)

(Case T‑560/18)

(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a medical plaster — Disclosure of the earlier designs — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

1. Community designs — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Precluded (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61) (see para. 18)

2. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Previous disclosure of identical design — Proof of the disclosure (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6 and 65(1); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28(1)(b)(v) and (vi)) (see paras 27, 28)

3. Community designs — Conditions for protection — Individual character — Design giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Determination of the overall impression in relation to one or more prior designs, taken individually (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 6) (see para. 35)

4. 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 — Criteria for assessment — Creative licence (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(2) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 46, 47)

5. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — Conflict with an earlier design — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Informed user — Meaning (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), 10(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 50, 51, 59)

6. 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 25(1)(b)) (see paras 57, 58)

7. 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 — Representation of a medical plaster (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6 and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 65, 67, 69, 70)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2018 (Case R 2216/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Atos Medical and Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7(1) and 94(1), first sentence)

(see paras 40-44)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 –

6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ad pepper)

(Case T‑666/18)

(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Figurative mark ad pepper — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

1. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Subject matter and scope of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1)(a) and 58(1)(a)) (see paras 18, 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 paras 20, 21, 37, 41)

3. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Figurative mark ad pepper (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1)(a) and 58(1)(a)) (see paras 30, 49, 73, 86, 100)

4. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Meaning — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1)(a) and 58(1)(a)) (see para 52-57, 65, 68, 69, 79, 80)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2018 (Case R 839/2017-1), relating to revocation proceedings between 6Minutes Media and ad pepper media International.

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 — Lack of precision with regard to the acts challenged — Inadmissibility

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

(see para. 44)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 5 March 2020 –

Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf v EUIPO — Brigade Electronics Group (CORNEREYE)

(Case T‑688/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CORNEREYE — Earlier EU word mark BACKEYE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use — Evidence — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion — Article 95(1) of Regulation 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 — Assessment criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 34, 41, 70, 77)

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 — Elements of a trade mark having a descriptive character (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35-40, 65)

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 marks CORNEREYE and BACKEYE (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 43, 44, 60, 67-69, 82, 83)

4. EU trade mark — Decisions of EUIPO — 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. 63)

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 — Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Assessment criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 74, 75)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2018 (Case R 1966/2017 1), relating to opposition proceedings between Brigade Electronics Group and Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 July 2018 (Case R 1966/2017-1);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf BV, including the costs necessarily incurred by Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 June 2020 –

B.D. v EUIPO – Philicon-97 (PHILIBON)

(Case T‑717/18)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark PHILIBON – Earlier national figurative mark PHILICON – Relative ground for refusal – Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention – Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(2)(c) and 53(1)(a)) (see para. 17)

2. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Reputation of the mark in the Member State or the EU – Concept – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 27, 28, 31, 72, 84)

3. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Word mark PHILIBON and figurative mark PHILICON (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(2)(c) and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 35, 36, 94, 95)

4. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Examination of the application – Evidence of use of the earlier mark – Simultaneous use of several signs (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 63)

5. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 73, 77)

6. EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Legality – Examination by the EU judicature – Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 90)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2018 (Case R 375/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Philicon 97 and B. D. – Boyer Developpement.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;