ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 April 2020 –

Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO — Döhler (TasteSense)

(Case T‑109/19)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark TasteSense — Earlier EU word mark MultiSense — 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 — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before EUIPO bodies — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 32)

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 43, 44, 52)

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 TasteSense and word mark MultiSense (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 55-58, 82-84)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 77-80)

5. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 90, 91)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 (Case R 1178/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Döhler and Kerry Luxembourg.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 April 2020 –

Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO — Döhler (TasteSense By Kerry)

(Case T‑108/19)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark TasteSense By Kerry — Earlier EU word mark MultiSense — 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 — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before EUIPO bodies — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 32)

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 43, 44, 52)

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 TasteSense By Kerry and word mark MultiSense (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 55-58, 83-85)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 77-80)

5. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 91, 92)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 (Case R 1179/2018 2), relating to opposition proceedings between Döhler and Kerry Luxembourg.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 May 2020 –

Pontinova v EUIPO — Ponti & Partners (pontinova)

(Case T‑76/19)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark pontinova — Earlier national word mark PONTI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Relevant public — Similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion)

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 16, 17, 58-60)

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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 26, 28, 31)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 35, 41, 48)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 40)

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 pontinova and word mark PONTI (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 63)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 (Case R 566/2018 5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ponti & Partners and Pontinova.

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

(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 paras 11, 12)
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 July 2020 –

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries v EUIPO (Moins de migraine pour vivre mieux)

(Case T‑696/19)

(EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark Moins de migraine pour vivre mieux – 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 – Concept – 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 Moins de migraine pour vivre mieux (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 778/2019-5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Moins de migraine pour vivre mieux as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 September 2020 –

Tetra v EUIPO – Neusta next (Wave)

(Case T‑869/19)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark Wave – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. European Union trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Assessment of distinctive character – Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15-17)

2. European Union trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Word mark Wave (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 28-30)

3. European Union trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision – Limits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3) (see paras 32-34)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2019 (Case R 2440/2018-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Neusta next and Tetra.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 October 2019 (Case R 2440/2018-2);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents – Meaning – Individual interest of the person concerned in defending himself – Not included

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b) and (2))

(see paras 26-28, 63, 76, 86)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 – Electrolux Home Products v EUIPO – D. Consult (FRIGIDAIRE)

(Case T‑583/19)

(EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark FRIGIDAIRE – Genuine use – Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. European Union trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Proof of use – Genuine use – Meaning – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 14-16)

2. European Union trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Word mark FRIGIDAIRE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51(1)(a)) (see paras 37, 45-48, 52)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 17 June 2019 (Case R 166/2018-5), relating to revocation proceedings between D. Consult and Electrolux Home Products.

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. 20)
Judicial proceedings – Proof – Probative value – Criteria for assessment – Principles of the unfettered adduction of evidence and the unfettered evaluation of evidence

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 85)

(see paras 46, 53, 65)
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Pleas in law not set out in the application – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility

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

(see para. 19)
European Parliament – Members – Payment of expenses and allowances – Parliamentary assistance allowances – Bearing of costs not connected to exercise of the Parliamentary mandate – Not included

(Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament concerning implementing measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament, Art. 33(2), first sentence)

(see para. 66)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2021 –

DF and DG v EIB

(Case T‑387/19)

(Civil service – Staff of the EIB – Remuneration – Decision refusing entitlement to an installation allowance upon return to headquarters – Liability)

1. Actions brought by officials – Act adversely affecting an official – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 17, 30)

2. Actions brought by officials – Action against a decision rejecting a complaint – Effect – Disputed measure referred to the Court – Exception – Decision not confirmatory in character (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 23, 24, 28, 33, 34)

3. Officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Remuneration – Installation allowance – Conditions for granting – Actual transfer of habitual residence – Decision refusing entitlement to a staff member reinstated at the Bank’s headquarters following his or her assignment to a field office – Unlawfulness – Grant conditional on the staff member’s residence not being established in his or her own home (see paras 53-64)

4. Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Cumulative conditions (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 69)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFUE and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and seeking, first, the annulment (i) of the EIB’s decisions of 6 March 2018 and 28 February 2019 not to grant the applicants the benefit of an installation allowance, (ii) of the EIB’s decisions of 19 and 27 March 2019 confirming the decision not to grant the installation allowance, and rejecting their request to launch a conciliation procedure, (iii) of the EIB’s decisions of 14 June 2019 confirming the decision not to grant the installation allowance and, second, compensation for harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of those decisions.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decisions of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 6 March 2018 and 19 March 2019 not to grant DF the payment of the installation allowance provided for in Article 5 of Annex VII to the EIB Staff Rules;

2. Annuls the decisions of the EIB of 28 February and 27 March 2019 not to grant DG the payment of the installation allowance provided for in Article 5 of Annex VII to the EIB Staff Rules;

3. Orders the EIB to pay to DF and DG, subject to the calculation of the amounts, the installation allowance provided for in Articles 5 and 17 of Annex VII to the EIB Staff Rules, increased by late interest, from the date of delivery of this judgment, calculated at the level of the European Central Bank (ECB) rate plus two points, until the date of payment in full by the EIB;

4. Dismisses the action for the remainder;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2021 –

Irish Wind Farmers’ Association and Others v Commission

(Case T‑680/19)

(State aid – Energy sector – Irish legislation on business property taxation – Method for calculating the amount of the tax owed by fossil fuel electricity producers – Complaint from wind farm operators – Decision finding that there is no State aid – Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure – Serious difficulties – Procedural rights of the interested parties)

State aid – Planned aid – Examination by the Commission – Preliminary review and main review – Compatibility of aid with the internal market – Difficulties of assessment – Commission’s duty to initiate the main review procedure – Serious difficulties – Concept – Objective nature – Burden of proof – Circumstances enabling the existence of such difficulties to be established – Duration insufficiency or incompleteness of the examination by the Commission at the time of the preliminary investigation procedure – No evidence

(Arts 107(1) and 108(2) and (3) TFEU; Council Regulation 2015/1589, Art. 4)

(see paras 34-45, 50-63, 67-71, 75-82, 97-116, 120-125)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 5257 final of 9 July 2019 on State aid SA.44671 (2019/NN) – Ireland.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
4.

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Decision to freeze funds – Adopted or maintained on the basis of a judicial procedure carried out by the authorities of a third State concerning the misappropriation of public funds or abuse of office by a public office-holder – Conditions – National decision adopted in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection – Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the grounds relied on against the persons or entities concerned are well founded – Council’s obligation to verify observance of the rights in question – Infringement (Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2019/354; Council Regulations No 208/2014 and No 2019/352) (see paras 86-96, 99-101, 104, 109, 113-119, 137)
Approximation of laws – Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals – REACH Regulation – Substances of very high concern – Procedure for identification – Determination of the level of concern of a substance – Taking into account of data relating to human exposure reflecting the risk management measures in force – Whether permissible

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Art. 57(a) to (f), and Annexes I and XV)

(see paras 34, 53, 56, 58, 94, 95, 122, 123)
1.

Actions for annulment – Time limits – Point from which time starts to run – Date of publication or notification – Day on which a measure came to the knowledge of the applicant – Subsidiary matter – Measures required, pursuant to a regulatory provision, to be published in the Official Journal – Decision by the Commission to end a formal investigation procedure concerning State aid – Action brought by a party that is not the addressee of the decision – Time limit calculated from the date of publication (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Council Regulation 2015/1589, Arts 9 and 32(3)) (see paras 36-39, 41)
Common commercial policy – Protection against subsidisation practices of non-Member States – Injury – Establishing a causal link – Obligations of the institutions – Calculation of the price undercutting of the imports at issue – Obligation to make a fair comparison between the price of the product concerned and the price of the like product of the EU industry – Comparison of prices obtained at different levels of trade – Infringement – Consequence – Annulment of the regulation imposing countervailing duties – Conditions

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1037, Arts 1(1) and 8(1), (2), (4) and (5))

(see paras 56-58, 61-63, 75-83, 86, 95-108, 113-117)
76

It should also be noted that, in its letter of 5 March 2019 (see paragraph 33 above) the Council, first, confined itself to stating that the letters from the PGO established that the applicant was still the subject of Case 113 and Case 521 for misappropriation of public funds or assets and, second, as regards observance of the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection, made express reference only to Case 521, adding that it was clear from the decision of the investigating judge of 5 October 2018 that those rights had been observed in this case. The observance of those rights followed from the fact that that decision had been taken on the conclusion of a hearing in public session in which the defence had participated. In addition, it was found at the hearing that the applicant was a suspect in those criminal proceedings, that his name was entered on a ‘wanted persons list’, that the prosecution had proven reasonable suspicion and that there were reasons to believe that the applicant was hiding from the authorities in charge of the preliminary investigation.