ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The rules of procedure apply, in principle, to all proceedings that were pending at the time when they entered into force. It is otherwise only if the new rule is accompanied by special provisions which specifically lay down its conditions of application over time or according to the degree of progress of the procedures concerned. However, in the first case, to apply a new procedural rule to a procedure already commenced under the previous procedural rule, and a fortiori to a completed procedure, could have the result, if that procedure must then be recommenced, of giving retroactive effect to the new procedural rule and not simply applying it to an ongoing situation or to the future effects of a situation arising under the previous rule. In such a case, the application of the new procedural rule results in the retroactive annulment of procedures or procedural steps which complied with the rule in force when they were completed.

Regulation 2015/1929, which modified Regulation No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union with effect from 1 January 2016, does not contain any specific transitional provisions accompanying the fixing of that general application date. In that regard, in the case of an adversarial procedure prior to the adoption of a penalty which was brought by the Commission on the basis of Article 131(5) of Regulation No 966/2012, read in conjunction with Article 109(1) of that regulation in the version applicable until 31 December 2015 and which ended in October 2015, the entire procedure prior to the adoption of the contested decision was properly carried out and completed before 1 January 2016, in the light of the rules applicable to it. The fact that the contested decision was adopted after the implementation of the new version of Regulation No 966/2012, with the introduction of a new panel conducting the adversarial procedure, cannot cast doubt on that assessment. Even if the introduction of that panel was intended to strengthen the rights of the defence of parties contracting with the Union who may be subject to a penalty under the said regulation, no express or implied provision of Regulation 2015/1929 or Regulation 2015/2462, amending Regulation No 1268/2012, can be interpreted as giving Article 105a(2) and Article 106(2) of the Regulation No 966/2012, in the version applicable from 1 January 2016, which provide in a number of cases for the intervention of the said panel, a retroactive scope which would imply recommencing the preliminary procedure completed properly before that date, in particular having regard to compliance with the adversarial principle.

(see paras 36-38, 40, 42, 43)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2017 – Kofola ČeskoSlovensko v EUIPO – Mionetto (UGO)

(Case T-176/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark UGO — Earlier EU figurative mark il UGO ! — Partial surrender of the earlier mark — 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–Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision–Limits–Surrender of the earlier mark occurred subsequent to the decision of the Board of Appeal–Irrelevant (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 50(2) and 65(2)(3)) (see paras 24-28)

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–Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 36)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para 42)

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 marks UGO and il UGO ! (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44, 63, 68, 69, 72, 77, 81)

5. EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Relative grounds for refusal–Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services–Similarity of the marks concerned–Criteria for assessment–Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 45, 46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2016 (Case R 2707/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mionetto and Kofola ČeskoSlovensko.

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–Abstract statement–Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para, and 53, first para; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d), and 177(1)(d))

(see paras 20, 21)
Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (now Article 7(2)(d) of Delegated Regulation No 2017/1430 supplementing Regulation No 207/2009 and repealing Regulations No 2868/95 and No 216/96) places on the opponent the burden of providing European Union Intellectual Property Office not only with particulars showing that it satisfies the necessary conditions, in accordance with the national law that it is seeking to have applied, in order to be able to have the registration of an EU trade mark prohibited by reason of an earlier right, but also with particulars establishing the content of that law.

Moreover, the third subparagraph of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, provides that where the action is directed against a decision of an Opposition Division, the Board of Appeal must limit its examination of the action to facts and evidence presented within the time limits set or specified by the Opposition Division, unless the Board considers that ‘additional’ or ‘supplementary’ facts and evidence must be taken into account pursuant to Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the European Union trade mark (now Article 95(2) of Regulation No 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark). However, Rule 50 of Regulation No 2868/95 cannot be interpreted as meaning that it extends the discretion of the Boards of Appeal to new evidence.

In that regard, if, in the context of the opposition proceedings, the applicant has produced no evidence as to the content of the national law at issue within the time limit and that the applicant has also failed to submit a legitimate reason justifying its conduct, and where the only piece of evidence presented by the applicant for the purpose of proving the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier non-registered trade mark provides no information on the use of the earlier mark relied on, and also contains no information on the requisite conditions under national law, the references to the provisions of national law provided by the applicant for the first time before the Board of Appeal are not ‘additional’ or ‘supplementary’ evidence to that which had been submitted before the Opposition Division. Consequently, the Board of Appeal did not have discretion to accept evidence produced for the first time before it, since such evidence was out of time.

(see paras 42, 49, 51-55, 60, 61)
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

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

(see para 97)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 November 2017 – FTI Touristik v EUIPO – Prantner and Giersch (Fl)

(Case T-475/16)

(European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark FI — Prior EU figurative mark fly.de — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — 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 21, 22, 58)

2. EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Relative grounds for refusal–Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services–Similarity of the marks concerned–Criteria for assessment–Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para 26)

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–Weighing elements of similarity or difference between the signs–Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the conditions in which the goods or services are marketed (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para 30)

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 marks Fl and fly.de (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 55-57, 64, 65)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2016 (Case R 480/2015-5) concerning opposition proceedings between FTI Touristik and Messrs Prantner and Giersch

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Appeal—Pleas in law—Review by the General Court of the assessment of the evidence made by the Civil Service Tribunal—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted—Plea alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence—Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 195(2))

(see paras 16, 17)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2017 — Xiaomi v EUIPO — Apple (MI PAD)

(Case T‑893/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MI PAD — Earlier EU word mark IPAD — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods and services)

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 18-20, 57)

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 para. 21)

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 MI PAD and IPAD (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 30, 56, 61-63, 65, 67-69)

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—Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31-33, 40, 49)

5. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Earlier trade mark constituted by an EU trade mark—Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 64)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 363/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Xiaomi.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU institutions—Exercise of powers—Delegation—Conditions—European Central Bank—Decision not issued by the authorised authority or by an authority having been delegated that power—Infringement of the rules of sound administration in the management of staff—Annulment of the decision

(Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and the European Central Bank., Art. 36.1; Rules of Procedure of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank; Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank)

(see paras 49, 52, 53)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 January 2018 — Brunner v EUIPO — CBM (H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE)

(Case T‑367/16)

(European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE — Earlier EU trade mark HOLY — 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—Assessment of the likelihood of confusion—Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17-19, 31)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Assessment of the likelihood of confusion—Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21)

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 H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE and word mark HOLY (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 43, 47, 50, 80, 85, 90, 91, 101-108)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Similarity between the goods or services in question—Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 41)

5. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 51-53)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2016 (Case R 2943/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between CBM and Mr Brunner.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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—Perception of the sign by the relevant public

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

(see para. 35)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 March 2018 — Gifi Diffusion v EUIPO — Crocs (Footwear)

(Case T‑424/16)

(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing footwear — Earlier Community design — Grounds for invalidity — Duty to state reasons — Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Ground raised by the Board of Appeal of its own motion — Powers of the Board of Appeal — Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

1. Community designs—Procedural provisions—Statement of reasons for decisions—Article 62, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009—Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62, first sentence) (see para. 29)

2. Acts of the institutions—Statement of reasons—Obligation—Scope—Correction of an error of reasoning during the proceedings before the Court—Not permissible (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 34)

3. Community designs—Procedural provisions—Statement of reasons for decisions—Article 62, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009—Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU—Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning—Lawfulness—Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62, first sentence) (see paras 35, 36)

4. Community designs—Procedural provisions—Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion—Action for invalidity—Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties—Jurisdiction of the Board of Appeal—Ground raised by the Board of Appeal of its own motion—Not included (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 63(1)) (see paras 45, 47, 48)

5. Community designs—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision—Limits (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61(3)) (see para. 51)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2016 (Case R 37/2015-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Gifi Diffusion and Crocs.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 April 2016 (Case R 37/2015-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between Gifi Diffusion and Crocs, Inc.;

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Gifi Diffusion in the proceedings before the General Court;
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. 19)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 March 2018 –

Agricola J.M. v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (CLOS DE LA TORRE)

(Case T‑806/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CLOS DE LA TORRE — Earlier national word mark TORRES — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — 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—Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 16)

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—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18, 44)

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 para. 19)

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 marks CLOS DE LA TORRE and TORRES (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 45, 53, 55, 56)

5. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 27)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 (Case R 2099//2015-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres and Agricola J.M.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;