ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 June 2019 –

Advance Magazine Publishers v EUIPO — Enovation Brands (VOGUE)

(Case T‑346/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark VOGUE — Earlier EU word mark VOGA — Suspension of the administrative procedure — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95)

1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal to a Board of Appeal — Stay of proceedings — Conditions (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 20(7)(c) and 50(1)) (see paras 20-22)

2. EU trade mark — Observation of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Stay of proceedings — Action for suspension based on an action for invalidity brought against the previous trade mark — Dismissal of the application by reason of the introduction of the said action during the opposition procedure — Not permissible (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 20(7)(c) and 50(1)) (see paras 27-29)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2018 (Case R 259/2017-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Enovation Brands and Advance Magazine Publishers.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 March 2018 (Case R 259/2017-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc;
4.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product itself — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment — Shape at issue a variation of the usual shape of the type of product in question — Fact not sufficient to establish distinctiveness of the mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 26)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2019–

AV v Commission

(Case T‑303/18 RENV)

(Civil service — Temporary agents — Engagement — Article 13 of the CEOS — Pre-engagement medical examination — Incomplete declarations at the medical examination — Failure of the person concerned to declare an illness — Subsequent discovery by the AECE — Retroactive application of medical cover deferment for five years — Referral to the Invalidity Committee — Reasonable time limit — Responsibility — Non-material injury)

1. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Medical examination — Candidate’s obligation to answer the questions asked — Consequences of incorrect or incomplete declarations — Retroactive application of medical cover deferment — Condition — Prior referral to the medical officer (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Art. 12(2)(d) and Art. 32) (see paras 61, 62, 65, 66, 70)

2. EU law — Principles — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Infringement in an administrative procedure — Passage of time likely to affect the content of a decision — Consequences in the context of medical cover deferment under Article 32 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1); Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Art. 32) (see paras 81, 82, 87)

3. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions (see para. 104)

4. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Compensation for loss caused to an official or member of staff — Administration's duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Scope (see para. 105)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Commission of 16 September 2014 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution decided to apply to the applicant the medical reservation clause provided for in Article 32 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union and not to grant him an invalidity allowance and, second, compensation for the harm he has allegedly suffered in connection with that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Rejects the claims for annulment;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay AV an amount of EUR 3000;

3. Rejects the claim for damages for the remainder;

4. Orders AV and the Commission each to pay their own costs pertaining to the initial proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union, in the action in Case F‑91/15 and in the present appeal proceedings in T‑303/18 RENV.
EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Decision on the appeal — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 70(2) and 94)

(see paras 37, 38)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 February 2019 –

Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (ARMONIE)

(Case T‑88/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark ARMONIE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 11, 20, 27)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark ARMONIE (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 28-34)

3. 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21-23)

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 — Laudatory promotional formula (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see paras 39-42)

6. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Examination by the EU judicature — Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 43)

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 — Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries — Decisions not binding EU bodies (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 46)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 (Case R 2063/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ARMONIE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2019 –

Pharmadom v EUIPO — IRF (MediWell)

(Case T‑502/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MediWell — Earlier national word mark WELL AND WELL and earlier national figurative mark well & well LES PHARMACIENS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 17)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19)

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 MediWell — Word mark WELL AND WELL and figurative marks well & well LES PHARMACIENS (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 24, 32, 40, 44, 45, 50, 56)

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 — 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 51)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2018 (Case R 6/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Pharmadom and IRF.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 39)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 September 2019 –

DK v EEAS

(Case T‑217/18)

(Civil service — Disciplinary proceedings — Criminal conviction — Penalty of withholding an amount from the pension — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — Mitigating circumstances — Liability)

1. Officials — Disciplinary measures — Penalty — Discretion of the appointing authority — Taking into account aggravating or extenuating circumstances — No obligation to take into account damages already awarded at national level in respect of loss caused to the EU — No misuse of powers (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex IX, Art. 10) (see paras 38-42, 44, 51, 52, 59, 61)

2. Officials — Disciplinary measures — Penalty — Discretion of the appointing authority — No obligation to follow the opinion issued by the Disciplinary Board (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex IX, Arts 6 and 8) (see paras 68-72)

3. Officials — Disciplinary measures — Penalty — Discretion of the appointing authority — Judicial review — Limits (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex IX, Art. 9(2)) (see paras 75-77)

4. Officials — Disciplinary measures — Penalty — Discretion of the appointing authority — Simultaneous disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution — Obligation of the administration to take a final decision on the situation of the official only after final judgment of the criminal court — Obligation on the administration to act within a reasonable period (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex IX, Art. 25) (see paras 85-88, 90, 91, 95)

5. Officials — Disciplinary measures — Penalty — Discretion of the appointing authority — Withholding pensions — Basis of calculation for withholding pensions — Inclusion of family allowances — Conditions — Minimum income guarantee (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VIII, Arts 6, 42 and 43, Annex IX, Art. 9(2)) (see paras 118, 119, 123, 124)

6. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Disciplinary penalty — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Art. 296 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25 and Annex IX, Art. 22) (see paras 145-149, 158)

7. 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 of Officials, Art. 91) (see paras 184-186)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the EEAS of 23 May 2017 to impose on the applicant a disciplinary penalty and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the EEAS’ infringement of his rights of defence in the criminal proceedings brought against him before the Belgian courts.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 24 October 2019 –

Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters)

(Case T‑559/18)

(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a medical plaster — Disclosure of the earlier designs — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

1. 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) (see para. 18)

2. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Previous disclosure of identical design — Proof of the disclosure (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6 and 65(1); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28(1)(b)(v) and (vi)) (see paras 27, 28)

3. Community designs — Conditions for protection — Individual character — Design giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Determination of the overall impression in relation to one or more prior designs, taken individually (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 6) (see para. 35)

4. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Criteria for assessment — Creative licence (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(2) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 46, 47)

5. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — Conflict with an earlier design — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Informed user — Meaning (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), 10(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 50, 51, 59)

6. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Global assessment of all the elements of the prior design (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 57, 58)

7. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Representation of a medical plaster (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6 and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 65, 67, 69, 70)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2018 (Case R 2215/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Atos Medical and Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Examination of the grounds for refusal having regard to each of the goods or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7(1) and 94, first sentence)

(see paras 43-45)
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Similar requirements for submissions made in support of a plea — Imprecise formulation of a claim — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Article 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see para. 49)
EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU

(Art. 296, second para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)

(see para. 57)
Agriculture — Financing by the EAGF — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Finding of defects in the system for granting aid to producer groups — Implementation of a calculated financial correction — Whether permissible — Conditions — Breach of principle of proportionality –None — Breach of the principles of sincere cooperation, protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty — None

(Council Regulation No 1698/2005, Recital 30 and Art. 35(1) and (2))

(see paras 77-80, 83-86, 92-109)
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 June 2020 –

Boyer v EUIPO – Philicon-97 (PHILIBON DEPUIS 1957 www.philibon.com)

(Case T‑718/18)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark PHILIBON DEPUIS 1957 www.philibon.com – Earlier national figurative mark PHILICON – Relative ground for refusal – Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention – Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(2)(c) and 53(1)(a)) (see para. 17)

2. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Reputation of the mark in the Member State or the EU – Concept – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 27, 28, 31, 71, 83)

3. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Figurative marks PHILIBON DEPUIS 1957 www.philibon.com and PHILICON (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(2)(c) and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 34, 35, 93, 94)

4. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Examination of the application – Evidence of use of the earlier mark – Simultaneous use of several signs (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 62)

5. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 72, 76)

6. EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Legality – Examination by the EU judicature – Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 89)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2018 (Case R 374/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Philicon 97 and Boyer.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility

(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 29, 30)
Environment – Atmospheric pollution – Reduction of emissions of fluorinated greenhouse gases – Regulation No 517/2014 – Allocation of quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market – Electronic registry of quotas managed by the Commission – Exceeding quotas determined on the basis of data kept in the electronic registry – Undertakings concerned having flagged errors in the electronic registry – Principle of sound administration – Obligation on the Commission to make a careful and impartial examination of all the relevant factors – Infringement

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 517/2014, Arts 16 to 19 and 25(2))

(see paras 48-62, 93-95)
1.

EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when lodging the trade mark application – Criteria for assessment – Taking into account of all relevant factors at the time of filing the application for registration – Applicant’s knowledge that a third party is using an identical or similar sign – Intention of the applicant – Degree of legal protection of the signs at issue – 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 18-22)
Actions brought by officials – Action against a decision rejecting a complaint – Effect – Disputed measure referred to the Court – Exception – Decision not confirmatory in character

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90(2) and 91; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Art. 46)

(see paras 45, 46)
3.

Approximation of laws – Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals – REACH Regulation – Substances of very high concern – Procedure for identification – Classification on the basis of the properties of constituents – Whether permissible – Condition – Account taken of the level of the presence of the constituents concerned and their chemical effects – Substances having persistent, bioaccumulable and toxic or very persistent and very bioaccumulable properties – Classification on the basis of the properties of the constituents – Whether permissible – Application of a concentration threshold for the purposes of classification – Whether permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Arts 14(2)(f), 31(3)(b), 56(6) and 57(d) and (e), and Annex XIII) (see paras 265, 266, 273)
EU agencies – Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) – Grant agreement – Request for a refund – Obligation to state reasons for decisions – Scope – Assessment of the duty to state reasons by reference to the circumstances of the case

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(c))

(see paras 35, 46)