ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
16

By letter of 19 January 2015, the Commission served the contested decision on Romania, together with the summary reports. In the first place, in that report, the Commission reviews the various deficiencies found and dismisses the individual assessment by the Romanian authorities of the financial impact on the EU budget of each of the deficiencies which it had identified under capitals ‘A’, ‘E’, ‘F’, ‘G’ and ‘I’. In the second place, the Commission concludes, in that report, firstly, that, in the absence of the provision of additional information by the Romanian authorities, it is not possible to calculate the risk of financial damage to the EU, which justifies the application of a flat rate. In that respect, the Commission takes as its basis the content of the reports of the Certification Body concerning claim years 2009 and 2010 respectively. It notes, in essence, that that body issue an unreserved opinion as regards the population covered by the IACS, but it nonetheless highlighted the possibility that there was a significant error in the statistics concerning that population, with an upper error limit of 2.7%, in respect of claim year 2009, and of 4.24%, in respect of claim year 2010. In addition, with regard to the latter year, the Commission refers to the lack of reliability of the error rate calculated by the Romanian Certification Body, based on the audit report of the European Court of Auditors on the validation by that certification body of the control statistics for the EAGGF expenditure covered by the IACS (increased guarantee procedure) as regards the 2011 financial year, which corresponds to the 2010 claim year. Secondly, to determine the rate of the flat-rate correction applicable, the Commission considers that the weaknesses in the functioning of the ISAP-GIS and the administrative cross-checks justify the application of a correction rate of 10% for the 2009 claim year. With regard to the 2010 claim year, the Commission considers that those failures justify the application of a rate of 5%, having regard in particular to the updating of the images of the ISAP-GIS and the improvement in the administrative cross-checks.
87

In the contested decision, the Parliament stated, in particular, that the tables at issue were drawn up for the purposes of ongoing trilogues, relating to a matter where a final decision had not yet been adopted either by it or by the co-legislators, so that the decision-making process ought to be regarded as ongoing. According to the Parliament, that process would be ‘actually, specifically and seriously’ affected by the disclosure of the fourth column of the tables at issue on account of the fact that the area of police cooperation, to which those tables related, was very sensitive, in particular as regards data protection and the management board of Europol. The Parliament also relies on the foreseeable risk that disclosing the Presidency of Council’s position before the end of the negotiations would be damaging to the good cooperation between institutions and affect the negotiation process, with the prospect of the loss of mutual trust and a revision of working methods, the risk of which could be prevented only after an agreement on all texts had been reached. It also stated that disclosure of the fourth column of the tables at issue would most probably lead to increased public pressure on the persons involved in the negotiations, rendering the adoption of a common position impossible or, at least, considerably more difficult. The Parliament thus invoked the principle that ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’ to show that disclosure of one element, even if in itself not sensitive, could have negative consequences on all other parts of a dossier. The Parliament therefore concluded that access to the entirety of the fourth column of the tables at issue should be rejected ‘until the text agreed has been approved by both parties’.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2017 — Wieromiejczyk v EUIPO (Tasty Puff)

(Case T‑64/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative trade mark Tasty Puff — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

1. 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 — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 15)

2. 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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16, 17, 30, 31)

3. 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 — Figurative mark Tasty Puff (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 18, 19, 32-35, 39)

4. 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. 37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2015 (Case R 3058/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Tasty Puff as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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—Similarity of the marks concerned—Assessment of the distinctiveness of an element composing a trade mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 27)
Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) of 17 November 2016 —

Fedtke v EESC

(Case T‑157/16 P)

(Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Purely confirmatory act — New substantive facts — Burden of proof)

Actions for annulment—Action against a decision refusing to withdraw or amend an earlier act—Inadmissibility—Concept of confirmatory decision—Decision adopted following an application raising new and substantial facts—Precluded

(Art. 263 TFEU)

(see paras 17-21)

Re:

APPEAL lodged against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 February 2016, Fedtke v EESC (F‑107/15, EU:2016:F:15), seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 February 2016, Fedtke v EESC (F‑107/15);

2. Refers the action to a Chamber of the General Court other than that which has ruled in the present appeal;
EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Overlap between the scope of the grounds for refusal set out in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009

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

(see paras 41, 42)
In the procedure for examining designs, EUIPO must verify, pursuant to Article 45 of Regulation No 6/2002 as amended, in particular, that the application for registration satisfies the mandatory conditions established by Article 36(1) of the said regulation.

Concerning compliance with those conditions, deficiencies may be remedied pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation No 6/2002, it being noted that, with regard to the conditions set out in Article 36(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, the date of filing of the application is to be fixed as the date on which the applicant remedied the deficiencies, whereas, regarding the other conditions, the original date of filing of the application is to be maintained following the remedying of the deficiencies. In the case where the deficiencies are not remedied, in the first situation, the application is not to be dealt with as an application for registration, whereas, in the second situation, the application is to be refused.

A representation of the design which is not suitable for reproduction comes solely under Article 46(2) of Regulation No 6/2002, in that the applicant may remedy the deficiencies, but the date of filing is to be postponed until the date on which those deficiencies are remedied. If those deficiencies are not remedied within the prescribed period, the application is not to be dealt with as an application for a registered design.

(see paras 36-38)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2017 — Klassisk investment v EUIPO (CLASSIC FINE FOODS)

(Case T‑194/16)

(EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark CLASSIC FINE FOODS — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

1. 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 — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 18)

2. 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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20, 21)

3. 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 — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 22, 23)

4. 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 — Figurative mark CLASSIC FINE FOODS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 28-33)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Refusal of registration based on one of the absolute grounds for refusal set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Whether sufficient (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)) (see para. 41)

6. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Aim (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2016 (Case R 1970/2015-1) concerning the international registration, designating the European Union, of the figurative mark CLASSIC FINE FOODS.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Failure to produce a translation of the registration certificate for an earlier mark — No obligation on the Office to inform the applicant for invalidity — Option for the Cancellation Division to dismiss the application for invalidity as unfounded

(Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 37(b), Rule 38 (1) and (2), and Rule 39(3))

(see paras 38-44)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 —

Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA

(Case T‑348/16)

(Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development — Minatran contract — Eligible costs — 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—Conditions

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

(see paras 26, 27)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that the debt in ERCEA debit note 3241606289, of 26 May 2016, ordering the applicant to repay part of the grant which it received for the Minatran project, in the sum of EUR 245 525.43, is unfounded, and that that sum corresponds to eligible costs.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that the debt in European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) debit note 3241606289 of 26 May 2016, ordering Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis to repay part of the grant which it received for the Minatran project, in the sum of EUR 245 525.43, is unfounded, and that that sum corresponds to eligible costs;

2. Declares that partial recovery by way of compensation, to the amount of EUR 132 192.12 of the debt claimed is contrary to grant agreement No 211166 concluded on 18 August 2008 for the implementation of the Minatran project and to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2017 — Massive Bionics v EUIPO — Apple (DriCloud)

(Case T‑223/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark DriCloud — Earlier international word marks ICLOUD — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Submission of evidence out of time — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

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 — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 24)

2. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2)) (see paras 32, 33, 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44, 45, 70)

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 mark DriCloud and word marks ICLOUD (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 47, 48, 69, 71, 76, 78, 79)

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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49, 58)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark 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 60-62)

7. 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 paras 80, 81)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 (Case R 339/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Massive Bionics.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Fruit and vegetables — Producers’ organisations — Financing by the EAGF — Calculation on the basis of the value of the production marketed during the reference period — Account taken of the production of new members of a producers’ association — Conditions — Need for those members to have formed part of another producers’ organisation — No breach of the principle of equal treatment

(Council Regulation No 2200/96, Art. 11(1)(c), and (3); Commission Regulations No 1433/2003, Arts 3(5), and 4(1) and (5), and No 1580/2007, Arts 52(5), and 53(1) and (5))

(see paras 45-48, 53, 54, 72, 75, 77-79)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 June 2017 —

Mr. Kebab v EUIPO — Mister Kebap (Mr. KEBAB)

(Case T‑448/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU figurative mark Mr. KEBAB — Earlier Spanish figurative mark MISTER KEBAP — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 18-21, 47, 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 — Figurative marks Mr. KEBAB and MISTER KEBAP (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 24, 46, 49)

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 — Weak distinctive character of the dominant element (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26, 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Coexistence of earlier marks — Recognition of a certain degree of distinctiveness of a national mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b); European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95, Art. 3(1)(b)) (see paras 34-36)

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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the 2nd Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 May 2006 (Case R 987/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mister Kebap and Mr. Kebab.

Operative part

The Court:

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

(Case T‑421/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Beste Oma — 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 Oma (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 13 May 2016 (Case R 91/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Beste Oma as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 September 2017 — Bodegas Verdúguez v EUIPO (TRES TOROS 3)

(Case T‑206/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark TRES TOROS 3 — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark for wine containing a geographical indication — Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks for wines or spirits containing or consisting of geographical indications identifying wines or spirits not having that origin — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(j)) (see paras 27, 28, 53)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks for wines or spirits containing or consisting of geographical indications identifying wines or spirits not having that origin — Word mark TRES TOROS 3 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(j)) (see paras 40, 44, 56, 59, 60)

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 — Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries — Decisions not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 47, 48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 (Case R 407/2015-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign TRES TOROS 3 as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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) and (c))

(see para. 31)
Appeal—Grounds—Inadequate statement of reasons—Scope of the obligation to state reasons—Ground involving a question of public policy—Considered of Court’s own motion

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 117)

(see paras 57, 58)
Appeal–Pleas in law–Mistaken assessment of the facts–Inadmissibility–General Court’s review of the assessment of the facts and evidence–Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 257, third para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1))

(see paras 37, 54, 55)