ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 2 February 2016 — Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris v OHIM — Vicente Gandía Pla (ILLIRIA)

(Case T‑541/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark ILLIRIA — Earlier Community word mark CASTILLO DE LIRIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 17-21)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 ILLIRIA and word mark CASTILLO DE LIRIA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 24, 31, 34, 35, 39, 40, 48)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 — Elements of a trade mark having a descriptive character — Wine sector (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 25)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2014 (Case R 917/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Vicente Gandía Pla, SA and Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris Srl.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

26 November 2015

Rhys Morgan

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Career development report — 2010-2011 appraisal period — Distortion — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment’

Appeal:

against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2014 in Morgan v OHIM (F‑26/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:180), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Rhys Morgan shall bear his own costs as well as those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in connection with the appeal.

Summary

Officials — Reports procedure — Appraisal report — Discrepancy between the appraisal interview and the general assessment level awarded to the official — Lawfulness — Misuse of powers — None

Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the scope of the obligation to state reasons — Facts on which Civil Service Tribunal based its findings to be taken into consideration

The issue of whether adequate reasons have been stated for a decision is a question of law reviewable by the General Court on appeal. Review by the court of appeal in this context of the legality of a decision must of necessity take into consideration the facts on which the court at first instance based its findings as to the adequacy or inadequacy of the statement of reasons. (see para. 77) See: Judgment of , 20 November 1997 in Commission v VC‑188/96 P, ECR, EU:C:1997:554, paragraph 24

The appraisal report must state specific reasons where the assessor intends not to follow the recommendations of the Joint Evaluation and Promotion Committee and where the committee’s opinion mentions special circumstances likely to cast doubt on the validity or proper foundation of the original assessment. (see para. 78) See: Judgment of 30 September 2004 in Ferrer de Moncada v Commission, T‑16/03, ECR-SC, EU:T:2004:283, paragraph 50

In the context of drawing up the career development report of an official of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), the existence of a discrepancy between the appraisal interview and the general assessment level awarded to the appellant in the contested report does not constitute evidence of a misuse of powers. That discrepancy may be readily explained by the appraisal procedure itself, provided for by the general implementing provisions adopted by OHIM for Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, from which it is apparent that the definitive appraisal report is drawn up not by the reporting officer but by the countersigning officer, whose duty is to ensure harmonisation of the appraisal criteria in all the reports which he signs. (see para. 110)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 8 April 2016 —

Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce (FRISA)

(Case T‑638/14)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for the European Union figurative mark FRISA — Earlier European Union figurative mark Frinsa — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier trademark — Submission of new facts and evidence in support of an appeal brought before the General Court — Power to alter decisions — Article 42(2) and (3), Article 65 and final part of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 22, paragraphs 2 to 4, of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95’

1. EU trade mark — 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 — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 22)

2. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 43-46)

3. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Application of the criteria to the case in question (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 47)

4. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Determination of a minimal quantitative use threshold — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 48)

5. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 49, 50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2014 (Joined Cases R 1547/2013-4 and R 1851/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Frinsa del Noroeste, SA and Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce, SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2014 (Joined Cases R 1547/2013-4 and R 1851/2013-4);
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2016 —

Novomatic v EUIPO — Granini France (HOT JOKER)

(Case T‑326/14)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark HOT JOKER — Earlier national figurative mark Joker — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. 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 22-24)

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 43, 44, 79)

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 marks HOT JOKER and Joker (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 45, 65, 70, 71, 80)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 46)

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 66, 67)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 82)

7. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Office’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of non-discrimination — No effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 83)

8. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties — Well-known facts taken into account (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 94)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2014 (Case R 589/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Granini France and Novomatic AG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2016 —

GRE v EUIPO (Mark1)

(Case T‑844/14)

‛EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Mark1 — 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 — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20-25)

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 26, 30)

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 28, 29)

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 — Flattering promotional formula — Word mark Mark1 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 36-40)

5. 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 paras 42-46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2014 (Case R 648/2014-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Mark1 as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2016 —

Peri v EUIPO (Shape of a formwork coupler)

(Case T‑656/14)

‛EU trade mark — Application for three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a formwork coupler — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product required to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Signs which consist exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Concept — Interpretation in the light of the public interest underlying each of them (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see paras 14-16)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Signs which consist exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Identification of the essential characteristics of a three-dimensional sign (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see paras 17, 18)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Signs which consist exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Shape of a formwork coupler (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see paras 20, 27, 32-34, 37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2014 (Case R 1178/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a formwork coupler as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Given that there is no legislation at EU level governing the concept of proof, any type of evidence admissible under the procedural law of the Member States in similar proceedings is in principle admissible.

Nevertheless, some evidence may be removed from the file, particularly where there exists a doubt both as to the actual nature of the contested document and as to whether the person relying on it obtained it by proper means.

It should also be noted that reviewing the lawfulness of contested evidence does not relieve the institutions of their obligation to respect the fundamental rights of the applicants. EU law cannot, in consequence, accept evidence obtained in complete disregard of the procedure laid down for gathering it and designed to protect the fundamental rights of interested persons. The use of that procedure must, therefore, be regarded as an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 263(2) TFEU.

In that context, recordings of telephone conversations which were obtained by the Commission in the course of an inspection at the offices of one of the undertakings involved in a cartel contrary to EU competition rules, and which, therefore, were made not by the Commission or by any other public authority, but by a private party who participated in those conversations, and which, furthermore, were collected lawfully by the Commission constitute evidence properly obtained by the Commission and thus, in principle, admissible in the context of an investigation for breach of competition law.

Concerning the question as to whether the evidence collected lawfully by the Commission may be used by it even though it was originally obtained by a third party, possibly in an unlawful manner, for example in breach of the right to respect for the private life of the person who was the subject of the disputed recordings, the use of an illegal recording as evidence does not, in itself, conflict with the principles of fairness laid down in Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and thus in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, even where that evidence was obtained in breach of the requirements of Article 8 of the ECHR, equivalent to Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, provided that, first, the applicant was not deprived of a fair trial or of his rights of the defence and, secondly, the evidence at issue was not the only proof relied on in support of the conviction.

(see paras 43-45, 47, 57-60, 62, 73, 76)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 11 October 2016 —

Søndagsavisen v Commission

(Case T‑167/14)

‛State Aid — Aid scheme to support production and innovation aid for written media — Decision not to raise objections — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Procedural rights of the interested parties — No serious difficulties — Obligation to state reasons’

1. State aid — Planned aid — Examination by the Commission — Preliminary review and main review — Compatibility of aid with the internal market — Difficulties of assessment — Commission’s duty to initiate the main review procedure — Serious difficulties — Definition — Objective nature — Burden of proof — Circumstances enabling the existence of such difficulties to be determined (Arts 107(1), and 108(2) and (3) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 4(4), and 13(1)) (see paras 17-24)

2. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Limits (Art. 107(3)(c) TFEU) (see para. 25)

3. State aid — Concept — Selective nature of the measure — Differentiation between undertakings in a comparable factual and legal situation (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see para. 90)

4. State aid — Planned aid — Examination by the Commission — Assessment of the validity of a Commission decision taken at the conclusion of the preliminary investigation phase by reference to information available at the time the decision adopted (Art. 108(2) and (3) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 4 and 5) (see para. 98)

5. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope (Art. 269 TFEU) (see para. 109)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7870 final of 20 November 2013 concerning State aid SA.36366 (2013/N) notified by the Kingdom of Denmark in favour of production and innovation aid to written media.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Søndagsavisen A/S to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 —

U4U and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T‑17/14)

‛Special and exceptional provisions applicable to officials serving in a third country — Career of officials with the grade of administrator — Amendment of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 — Irregularities during the procedure for adopting the measures — Failure to consult the Staff Regulations Committee and the trade unions’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation amending the Staff Regulations — Action brought by trade unions — Alleged breach of the concertation procedure — Admissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 76, 88-90)

2. Officials — Staff Regulations — Regulation amending the Staff Regulations — Procedure for adoption — Consultation of the Staff Regulations Committee — Reconsultation in the event of substantial modification of the initial proposal — Scope of the obligation (Staff Regulations, Art. 10, second para.) (see paras 129, 130, 135, 138, 140)

3. Officials — Staff Regulations — Regulation amending the Staff Regulations — Procedure for adoption — Application of the concertation procedure — Refusal of the Parliament to participate in the said procedure — No infringement of the right to information and worker consultation (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 27) (see paras 144-146, 148, 149)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 181)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Article 1(27), (61), (70) and (73)(k) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), in so far as those provisions amend Article 45 and annexes I, X and XIII of those regulations, annexed to Regulation No 31 (EEC)/11(EAEC) laying down the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 1962 45, p. 1385).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Union pour l’Unité (U4U), Unité & solidarité — Hors Union (USHU), Regroupement Syndical (RS) and Mr Georges Vlandas to pay the costs;