ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 September 2021 –

Eos Products v EUIPO (Shape of a spherical container)

(Case T‑489/20)

(EU trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark – Shape of a spherical container – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctiveness – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2007/1001))

1. 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 65, 67, 97)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 32, 34, 35)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product itself – Distinctive character – Criteria for assessment – Shape in question being a ‘variant’ of the habitual shapes of the type of products concerned – Fact not sufficient to establish distinctiveness of the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 42-45, 83)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Three-dimensional sign constituted by the shape of a spherical container (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 49, 57, 69, 72, 75, 77, 84, 89, 92, 98)

5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Exception – Distinctive character acquired through use – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(3)) (see para. 86)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2020 (Case R 2017/2019-4), relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign constituted by the shape of a spherical container as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 September 2021 –

Henry Cotton’s Brand Management v EUIPO – Industries Sportswear (Henry Cotton’s)

(Case T‑173/20)

(EU trade mark – Proceedings for the revocation of decisions or for the cancellation of entries – Cancellation of an entry in the register which contains an obvious error attributable to EUIPO – Trade marks involved in insolvency proceedings – Registration of the transfers of the marks – Effects vis-à-vis third parties of bankruptcy or similar proceedings – Competence of EUIPO – Duty of diligence – Articles 20, 24, 27 and 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Articles 3, 7 and 19 of Regulation (EU) 2015/848)

1. EU trade mark – EU trade marks as objects of property – Transfer – Entry of the transfer in the register – Trade mark involved in insolvency proceedings – Third-party effects – EUIPO’s competence – Duty of diligence (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 2015/848, Recital 36 and Arts 3, 7 and 19, and No 2017/1001, Arts 20, 24 and 27; Commission Regulation No 2018/626, Art. 13) (see paras 59-70, 72-75, 85, 86)

2. EU trade mark – EU trade marks as objects of property – Third-party effects – Bankruptcy proceedings (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 27) (see paras 101, 102)

3. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Cancellation or revocation – Condition – Obvious error – Concept – Failure to enter insolvency proceedings concerning the proprietor of a trade mark in the register – Transfer of the trade mark entered in the register without taking the insolvency proceedings into account – Included (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 20, 24, 27 and 103) (see paras 111-113, 115-120)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2020 (Joined Cases R 254/2019-2 and R 255/2019-2), relating to proceedings between Industries Sportswear and Henry Cotton’s Brand Management regarding the cancellation of entries in the register.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 October 2021 –

Sedus Stoll v EUIPO – Kappes (Sedus ergo+)

(Case T‑436/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark Sedus ergo+ – Earlier national and international word marks ERGOPLUS – Relative ground for refusal – No 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 17, 18, 73-75)

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 23, 24)

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 – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39-44)

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 Sedus ergo+ and ERGOPLUS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 60, 81-87)

5. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU Courts – Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision – Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3)) (see paras 89-91)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2020 (Case R 2194/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Kappes and Sedus Stoll.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 March 2020 (Case R 2194/2018-1);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sedus Stoll AG for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court;
EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – No obligation to inform the parties of the legal remedies available and of the time limits

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 68 and 104; Commission Regulation No 2018/625, Art. 68)

(see para. 36)
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 – Refusal to register where there is a relative ground for refusal, even if limited to part of the Union (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 18)
EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark – Subject matter and scope of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Examination of alteration of distinctive character

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), second para. (a) and 42(2) and (3))

(see paras 49-51)
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based

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

(see para. 35)
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 November 2021 –

Jakober v EUIPO (Shape of a cup)

(Case T‑658/20)

(EU trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark – Shape of a cup – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Lack of distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product itself – Distinctive character – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 14, 15, 19, 20, 32, 37)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Three-dimensional mark comprising the shape of a cup (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 35, 36, 40, 43)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Assessment of the registrability of a sign – EU rules only taken into account – Decisions of national authorities not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 41)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Exception – Distinctive character acquired through use – Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(3)) (see para. 45)

5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Exception – Distinctive character acquired through use – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(3)) (see paras 46-49)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 August 2020 (Case R 554/2020-5), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a cup as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judicial proceedings – Measures of organisation of procedure – Request for production of documents – Discretion of the EU judicature – Duties of the person making the request – Refusal of request due to failure to show relevance

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 88(1) and 89(3)(d))

(see paras 90-93)
2.

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures directed against the Democratic Republic of the Congo – Freezing of funds of persons undermining the rule of law or contributing to the commission of acts that constitute serious human rights violations – Obligation to identify in the statement of reasons individual and specific reasons justifying such measures – Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned, enabling him or her to understand the scope of the measure taken against him or her (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109, Annex II; Council Regulations No 1183/2005 and No 2019/2101, Annex) (see paras 55, 61-66, 68)
2.

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures directed against the Democratic Republic of the Congo – Freezing of funds of persons undermining the rule of law or contributing to the commission of acts that constitute serious human rights violations – Obligation to identify in the statement of reasons individual and specific reasons justifying such measures – Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned, enabling him or her to understand the scope of the measure taken against him or her (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109, Annex II; Council Regulations No 1183/2005 and No 2019/2101, Annex) (see paras 56, 62-67, 69)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2022 –

LA v Commission

(Case T‑456/20) ( 1 )

(Civil service – Officials – Recruitment – Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 – Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition – Criteria to assess professional experience – Compliance of criteria applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice)

Officials – Competitions – Competition based on qualifications and tests – Conditions for admission – Diplomas produced or professional experience attested – Discretion of the selection board – Determination of assessment criteria – Whether permissible – Limits – Adherence to the notice of competition – Adoption of an additional criterion not mentioned in the notice of competition – Not permissible

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Arts 1(1) and 5, first and third paras)

(see paras 25, 30-35, 44-46, 53, 54)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Selection Board of 24 September 2019 refusing the request for review of LA’s exclusion from competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 23 February 2022 –

OJ v Commission

(Case T‑709/20) ( 1 )

(Civil Service – Officials – Recruitment – Competition EPSO/AD/380/19 – Decision to refuse to extend the test dates for a competition – Time limits set for passing a selection test in a test centre – Right to a fair procedure – Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials – Equal treatment)

Officials – Competitions – Holding of an open competition – Test dates – Refusal to extend – No breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials or of the principles of sound administration and equal treatment

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III)

(see paras 42-44, 47-52)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders OJ to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

( 1 ) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Officials – Vacancy notice – Rejection of application – Obligation to state reasons – Scope – Observance of the secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings – Obligation to state reasons at the latest at the stage of rejection of the complaint

(Art. 296 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 25, second para., 29, 90(2) and 91)

(see paras 25, 26, 32, 37, 38)
Officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Psychological harassment – Meaning – Attack on self-esteem and self-confidence – Requirement that conduct must be repetitive – Criteria for assessment

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 12a; Staff Code of Conduct of the European Investment Bank, Art. 3.6.1; Policy on dignity at work of the European Investment Bank, Art. 2.1)

(see paras 31-38, 60, 125, 126)
Judicial proceedings – Costs – Litigation concerning intellectual property rights – Recoverable costs – Costs necessarily incurred by the parties for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 190(2))

(see para. 57)
4.

State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest – Compensation for the costs generated by the public service mission – Assessment of the compatibility of the compensation granted with the internal market – Observance of coherence between the Treaty FEU on State aid and other provisions of the Treaty FEU covering the functioning of the internal market – Undertaking entrusted with the management of services of general economic interest which has participated in a cartel relating to those services – Contradiction between the objective of the cartel and the objective of the compensation granted – Incompatibility of compensation with the internal market (Arts 107(1) and 108 TFEU) (see paras 118-122)
122

As regards, furthermore, the complaint concerning the statement of reasons relating to the possibility of replicating TAROM’s services, it must be noted that, in recital 61 of the contested decision, the Commission took the view, relying on recitals 17 to 19 of that decision, that it appeared unlikely that airlines in competition with TAROM would step in to fully cover the domestic routes operated exclusively by TAROM, as their willingness to enter that market was presumably low. In that regard, recital 17 of that decision states that those domestic routes would not be attractive to those competitors, which are low-cost airlines, since demand for those routes is low in terms of passengers per flight and it would not be profitable to operate them with larger aircraft than those used by TAROM, such as those operated by such airlines. In recital 18 of that decision, it is stated that there would be no valid alternatives for the routes operated by TAROM in terms of proximity airports, minimum journey time and number of stops needed to reach the destination, since the flights offered by TAROM’s competitors for international routes were possible only with one or two stops. Lastly, in recital 19 of the contested decision, it is noted that TAROM’s competitors would not be able to offer, within a few months, additional capacity to take over the routes which would be abandoned and that, if they did so, the services offered would not be at the same level as those offered by TAROM in terms of flight frequency and quality of service.
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; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188)

(see para. 37)
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 – Earlier trade mark constituted by an EU trade mark – Refusal to register where there is a relative ground for refusal, even if limited to part of the Union (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 28)
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 enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 51)
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 – Refusal to register where there is a relative ground for refusal, even if limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 26)
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Brief statement 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 38, 39)
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 – Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25-28)
2.

EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Criteria for assessment – Taking into account all relevant factors at the time of filing of the application for registration – Applicant’s knowledge that a third party is using an identical or similar sign – Intention of the applicant – 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 6 July 2022 – VI v Commission

(Case T‑20/21) ( 1 )

(Civil service – Officials – Recruitment – Open Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 – Non-inclusion on the reserve list – Equal treatment – Stability in the composition of the selection board)

Officials – Competitions – Selection board – Composition – Sufficient stability – Need for measures of coordination such as to ensure equal treatment and a consistent and objective assessment of the candidates – Scope – Obligation for all the members of the selection board to be present at the coordination meetings

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 27 and Annex III, Art. 3)

(see paras 29-35, 58, 67, 72, 74)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision, adopted after review, of the selection board for Open Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 of 27 February 2020 not to include VI’s name on the reserve list for that competition;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Procedure - Personal appearance of the parties - Object - Amicable settlement of the proceedings

( Rules of Procedure, Art . 45(2)(a ) )