ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 18 July 2017 —

Savant Systems v EUIPO — Savant Group (SAVANT)

(Case T‑110/16)

(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark SAVANT — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Condition of admissibility — Grounds of appeal directed only against decisions of the Boards of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(1)) (see para. 14)

2. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51(1)(a)) (see paras 24-26, 31, 32, 34, 42-44)

3. 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 71, 73)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 (Case R 33/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Savant Systems and Savant Group.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 —

Entreprise commune Clean Sky 2 v Scouring Environment

(Case T‑238/16)

(Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Non-performance of the contract — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)

Judicial proceedings — Action before the General Court — Application of the default procedure — Obligation of Court to rule on the applicant’s pleas — Limits

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 123(3))

(see paras 18-22)

Re:

ACTION brought on the basis of Article 272 TFEU for an order that Scouring Environment repay the sum advanced under Grant Agreement No 287071, together with default interest.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Scouring Environment SARL to repay the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 60000, together with accrued default interest calculated at the rate of 3.65% per annum from 12 September 2014 until the date of full payment of the amount due;
EU budget — Financial regulation — Recovery of debts due to the Union from third parties — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 81; Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Art. 93(1))

(see paras 27-29)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 — Commission v IEM

(Case T‑141/16)

(Arbitration clause — Contract FAIR-CT98-9544 concluded under the Fourth Framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1994-1998) — Termination of the contract — Reimbursement of sums advanced — Default interest — Default procedure)

Judicial proceedings — Action before the General Court — Application of the default procedure — Obligation of Court to rule on the applicant’s pleas — Limits

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 123(3))

(see paras 25, 26)

Re:

ACTION on the basis of Article 272 TFEU seeking an order that IEM — Erga — Erevnes — Meletes perivallontos kai chorotaxias AE reimburse the advances paid by the European Commission in relation to contract FAIR-CT98-9544, together with default interest.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders IEM — Erga — Erevnes — Meletes perivallontos kai chorotaxias AE to pay the sum of EUR 75 728.33 to the European Commission, together with default interest at the rate of 3% to run from 4 September 2010 until payment in full;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 June 2017 —

Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL WIFE and Others)

(Joined Cases T‑427/16 to T‑429/16)

(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word marks AN IDEAL WIFE, AN IDEAL LOVER and AN IDEAL HUSBAND — No genuine use of the marks — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No proper reason for non-use)

1. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1) and 51(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(3)) (see paras 16-22, 30-31, 35, 39, 43, 44)

2. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Word marks AN IDEAL WIFE, AN IDEAL LOVER and AN IDEAL HUSBAND (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 36, 41, 45, 53)

3. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Concept of ‘proper reasons’ for non-use — Independent and uniform interpretation — Obstacles bearing a direct relation to the trade mark rendering its use unreasonable or impossible and independent of the volition of the trade mark proprietor (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 50, 52)

Re:

ACTIONS brought against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2016 (Cases R 1528/2015-2, R 1527/2015-2 and R 1526/2015‑2), concerning revocation proceedings between Ms Rey and Ms Martín Osete.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2017 —

sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Freunde)

(Case T‑450/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Beste Freunde — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Concept—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 20)

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 21-23)

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 24, 26)

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. 25)

5. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Word mark Beste Freunde (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 28-32)

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 (see para. 46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 (Case R 93/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Beste Freunde as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
It follows from the general principles of EU law that the administration is, as a rule, empowered to revoke, with retroactive effect, favourable administrative acts adopted unlawfully, but that the retroactive withdrawal of an act which has created rights in favour of the person to whom it is addressed is generally subject to very strict conditions. Whilst it must be acknowledged that any EU institution which finds that a measure which it has just adopted is tainted by illegality has the right to withdraw that measure within a reasonable period, with retroactive effect, that right may be restricted by the need to respect the legitimate expectations of a beneficiary of the measure, who has been led to rely on the lawfulness thereof. Such a decision is also subject to the condition that it does not infringe the principle of legal certainty.

However, the strict conditions which attach to the retroactive withdrawal of an illegal administrative act creating individual rights are not relevant where the act in question does not, vis-à-vis the person to whom it is addressed, constitute an act giving rise to rights, but an act adversely affecting him.

It follows that there is nothing to prevent the withdrawal of an illegal or legal administrative act which, vis-à-vis the person to whom it is addressed, is principally an act adversely affecting him and incidentally creates rights in his favour, provided that the legitimate expectations of that person are not interfered with and the principle of legal security is not infringed.

(see paras 27-29)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2017 — La Rocca v EUIPO (Take your time Pay After)

(Case T‑755/16)

(European Union trade mark — Application for figurative EU trade mark Take your time Pay After — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 12-15)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Assessment of distinctive character—Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 19, 25)

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—Distinctive character—Application of specific criteria for assessment—Not permissible (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Figurative mark Take your time Pay After (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 23, 26-32)

5. EU trade mark—Procedural provisions—Statement of reasons for decisions—Aim (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 37)

6. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the goods 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 para. 39-41)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 August 2016 (Case R 406/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Take your time Pay After as EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Freundin)

(Case T‑452/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Beste Freundin — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 20)

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 21-23)

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 24, 26)

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. 25)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark Beste Freundin (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 28-32)

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 (see para. 46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 (Case R 96/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Beste Freundin as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 28 September 2017 — Hristov v Commission and EMA

(Joined Cases T‑495/16 RENV I and T‑495/16 RENV II)

(Civil Service — Appointment — Position of executive director of a regulatory agency — EMA — Selection and appointment procedure — Composition of the pre-selection panel — Impartiality — Assessment criteria — Appointment of another candidate — Res judicata)

1. Officials—Recruitment—Procedure for filling a director post—Pre-selection panel—Principle of impartiality—Composition—Member of the panel also a member of the appointing body—Lawfulness (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 726/2004, Arts 64 to 66) (see paras 84, 86, 87)

2. Officials—Recruitment—Procedure for filling a director post—Choice of the manner of organising the selection procedure and conduct thereof—Discretion of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment (see para 91)

3. Officials—Recruitment—Guidelines on Selection and Appointment of Director of Regulatory Agencies, Executive Agencies and Joint Undertakings—Legal effects (see para. 92)

4. Officials—Recruitment—Procedure for filling a director post—Selection procedure—Evaluation criteria—Discretion of the pre-selection committee—Judicial review—Limits (see paras 116-118)

5. Officials—Recruitment—Procedure for filling a director post—Consideration of the comparative merits of candidates—Administration’s discretion—Limits—Observance of the conditions laid down in the vacancy notice and of the rules of procedure adopted for the exercise of discretion (Staff Regulations, Art. 29(2)) (see para. 139)

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, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 150)

Re:

ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU and seeking, in particular, annulment of the Commission decision of 20 April 2011 by which it proposed to the EMA’s Management Board a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments and of the decision of the EMA’s Management Board of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA and seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 6 October 2017 – NRJ Group v EUIPO – Sky International (SKY ENERGY)

(Case T-184/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark SKY ENERGY — Earlier EU word mark NRJ — 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 No207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 58, 81, 93)

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–Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 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–Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark–High distinctiveness of the earlier mark–Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 60)

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 No207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 82)

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–Word marks SKY ENERGY and NRJ (Council Regulation No207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 95)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 February 2016 (Case R 3137/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between NRJ Group and Sky International.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark–Observations of third parties and opposition–Examination of the opposition–Proof of use of the earlier mark–Genuine use–Meaning–Interpretation taking account of the rationale of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, tenth recital and Art. 42(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(3))

(see para. 29)
EU institutions—Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data—Regulation No 45/2001—Processing of personal data—Information obligations in the event of information not having been collected from the person concerned—Infringement—Bearing on the legality of acts adopted on the basis of the information at issue—None

(Art. 340 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 45/2001, Arts 12(1) and 32)

(see paras 33-35, 44)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2017 – Isocell v EUIPO – iCell (iCell.)

(Case T-776/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark iCell. — Earlier EU word mark Isocell, earlier international word mark Isocell and earlier international and national word marks ISOCELL — 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 18, 19, 44)

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 –Figurative mark iCell.–Word marks Isocell and ISOCELL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 43, 45)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 September 2016 (Case R 2496/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Isocell and iCell.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Absolute grounds for refusal–Overlapping of the scope of the grounds set out in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c))

(see para. 33)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2017 — De Nicola v Council and Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T‑42/16)

(Non-contractual liability - Civil service - EIB staff - Guidelines concerning laser treatment - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Reasonable time - Failure to comply with the rules governing the right to a fair hearing - Material damage - Non-material damage - Claims made by the applicant in the context of a case pending before the Civil Service Tribunal - Partial referral of the case to the General Court)

1. Non-contractual liability-Conditions-Unlawfulness-Injury-Causal link-One of the conditions not satisfied-Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 39-44)

2. 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 for compensation for damage allegedly caused by an EU institution-Factors enabling identification of the conduct of which the institution is accused, the causal link and the reality and certainty of the damage caused (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 44(c); Rules of Procedure of the General Court (2015), Art. 86) (see paras 45, 46)

3. Judicial proceedings-Duration of the proceedings before the General Court-Reasonable time-Criteria for assessment (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, second para.) (see paras 62-65)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of, first, the adoption by the EU legislature of certain guidelines concerning laser treatment, second, the allegedly excessive duration of the proceedings before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal and the General Court in relation to his request for reimbursement of the medical fees connected with laser treatment, third, the supposedly unfair nature of those proceedings and, fourth, the numerous actions which he has been compelled to bring by the Civil Service Tribunal and the General Court.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;