ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 –

Turbo-K International v EUIPO — Turbo-K (TURBO-K)

(Case T‑671/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU work mark TURBO-K — Earlier non-registered marks TURBO-K — Relative ground for refusal — Use of a sign in the course of trade of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rules governing common-law actions for passing-off — Goodwill)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Conditions — Assessment by reference to the criteria determined by the national law governing the sign relied on (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see para. 33)

2. Action for annulment — Subject-matter — Decision based on several pillars of reasoning, each sufficient to justify the operative part — Annulment of such a decision — Conditions (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 39)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Local scope of sign — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see para. 52)

4. National law — Reference to national law — United Kingdom law — Action for passing off (see paras 56-58, 64, 69, 79)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Word mark TURBO-K and unregistered marks TURBO-K (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 59, 68, 71, 72, 81, 85)

6. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to the proceedings — Persons whose claims not upheld by a decision — Decision upholding an opposition to registration of a trade mark, based on the existence of the likelihood of confusion with an earlier mark, without recognising the latter as having enhanced distinctiveness — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(4)) (see paras 90, 91)

7. EU trade mark — Conversion into a national trade mark application — Application with a view to initiating the national procedure (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 112(2)(b)) (see paras 95-97)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2017 (Case R 2135/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Turbo-K and Turbo-K International.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses the cross-claim as inadmissible;
Officials — Members of the contract staff — Termination of a fixed-term contract following sick leave — Conditions — Exceeding the period set for paid sick leave — Calculation of the length of time worked by the member of staff — Account taken of the cumulative period of sick leave including absences due to illness without a certificate

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 59(1); Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Arts 16, 2nd para. and 48(b))

(see paras 57-71)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 September 2019 –

US v ECB

(Case T‑780/17)

(Civil service — ECB staff — Appraisal report for 2016 — Annual salary and bonus review — Refusal to convert a fixed-term employment contract into a contract for an indefinite period — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

1. Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — Change of assessment compared with previous report — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (see paras 40-43)

2. Officials — Reports procedure — Appraisal report — Discretion of assessors — Judicial review — Limits — Manifest error of assessment — Concept (see paras 60, 61)

3. Actions brought by officials — Pleas in law — Misuse of powers — Concept (see para. 129)

4. Actions brought by officials — Staff of the European Central Bank — Plea of illegality — Scope — Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded — Bank guidelines concerning the annual salary and bonus review of agents — Included — Conditions (Art. 277 TFEU) (see paras 142-144)

5. 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 (see para. 154)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for 2016 and the decision regarding the annual salary and bonus review for 2016 and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those measures.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Approximation of laws — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals — REACH Regulation — Obligation to register with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — Requirement for joint submission of data — Joint submission with possibility of a complete opt-out — Grant of such an opt-out — Administrative practice of ECHA requiring an agreement on the terms for making a joint submission with the lead registrant for a registered substance — Failure to reach an agreement — Application by analogy of the dispute resolution mechanism — ECHA decision granting access to a joint submission — Legal basis –Difference between the rights and obligations of the companies concerned according to legal basis

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Arts 11(3), 27 and 30(3))

(see paras 90-97)
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

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

(see paras 35-39)
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 — Application in the context of a loan agreement for any installments falling due and remaining unpaid after the date of the application — Hypothetical circumstances not yet established — Inadmissibility

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

(see paras 18-22)
EU budget – EU financial assistance – Obligation on the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the assistance – Contracts concluded under a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme – Conditions of ineligibility of costs – Conflict of interests on the part of the beneficiary – Concept – Consequences – Recovery of the sums advanced to the beneficiary

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2321/2002, Art. 18(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 183)

(see para. 64)
Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s power of inspection – Right to an effective remedy – System of legal remedies satisfying conditions of effectiveness, efficiency, certainty and reasonable time

(Arts 263, 268, 277, 278 and 340 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 157(2); Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(1) and (4))

(see paras 54-79)
33

Moreover, as the Court of Justice has held in the context of its Rules of Procedure, whose wording is identical on that point to that of Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the mistaken designation in the application of a defendant other than the body which adopted the contested measure does not render the application inadmissible if the application contains information which makes it possible to identify unambiguously the party against whom it is made, such as the designation of the contested measure and the body responsible for it. In such a case, the defendant must be considered to be the body responsible for the contested measure, even if not referred to in the introduction to the application. That situation must however be distinguished from the case in which the applicant persists in the designation of the defendant referred to in the introduction to the application, in full awareness of the fact that that defendant is not the author of the contested measure. In the latter case, the Court must treat as defendant the party designated in the application and, where appropriate, draw the necessary consequences of that designation in so far as concerns the admissibility of the action (see order of 16 October 2006, Aisne and Nature v Commission, T‑173/06, not published, EU:T:2006:320, paragraphs 17 and 18 and the case-law cited).
103

Accordingly, in particular, progressive tax structures, including significant reductions to the basis of assessment, which are not exceptional in the Member States’ tax systems, do not in themselves imply the existence of State aid. In its Notice on the notion of State aid (see paragraph 80 above), the Commission states in that regard, in point 139, that the progressive nature of income tax may be justified by its redistributive purpose. However, there is no basis for limiting that type of assessment, as the Commission did in recitals 68 and 69 of the contested decision, to taxes on income or those seeking to offset and deter certain negative effects likely to be caused by the activity concerned, and to exclude that assessment for taxes applying to the undertakings’ activity, not their net revenue or profit. It is not apparent from the case-law referred to in paragraphs 73 to 77 above that, in order for a measure varying a tax not to be characterised as a selective advantage, a Member State could have recourse only to variation criteria limited to certain aims, such as the redistribution of wealth or the offsetting or deterrence of negative externalities. What is necessary to that end is that the variation wished must not be arbitrary, contrary to what occurred in the case giving rise to the judgment of 22 December 2008, British Aggregates v Commission (C‑487/06 P, EU:C:2008:757), mentioned in paragraph 94 above, that it must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner and must remain consistent with the objective of the tax concerned. For example, the variation mechanisms referred to in paragraphs 96, 97 and 99 above, which were not held to be selective by the Court, did not reflect a taxation purpose proportional to negative externalities, nor indeed a redistributive purpose, but other aims. In addition, as pointed out in paragraph 89 above, it cannot be excluded that a redistributive purpose may also justify the progressivity of a turnover tax, as the Government of Hungary rightly maintains in the present case. A redistributive purpose may indeed even justify a total exemption for some undertakings as shown by the case mentioned in paragraph 98 above.
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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39, 40)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 –

Užstato sistemos administratorius v EUIPO — DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem (Representation of a bottle with an arrow)

(Case T‑477/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a bottle and an arrow — Earlier EU figurative mark representing a can, a bottle and an arrow — 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 paras 16, 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 27-29)

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 — Elements of a trade mark having a descriptive character (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, 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 mark representing a bottle with an arrow — Figurative mark representing a can, a bottle and an arrow (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49, 53-55)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 52)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2018 (Case R 2203/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem and Užstato sistemos administratorius.

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 — Aim — Need to preserve availability

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c), replaced by European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))

(see para. 17)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 –

Battelle Memorial Institute v EUIPO (HEATCOAT)

(Case T‑469/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark HEATCOAT — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, 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 — Meaning (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 19)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20, 29)

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 — Word mark HEATCOAT (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 22-24, 30, 36)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Refusal to register based on one of the absolute grounds for refusal set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Whether sufficient (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)) (see para. 44)

6. EU trade mark — Decisions of EUIPO — 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see paras 48-50)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2018 (Case R 36/2018-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign HEATCOAT as an EU trade mark.

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 — Similar requirements for submissions made in support of a plea

(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 para. 17)
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 — Consideration given, as representations of the same earlier design or model, to elements disclosed to the public in different ways (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 75-79)
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 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 — Definition — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, 29)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 –

Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata)

(Case T‑265/18)

(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Formata — Earlier international figurative mark Formata — Relative ground for invalidity — Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Rule 37 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 12 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Conditions governing the representation of the earlier mark — Rule 19 of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 7 of Delegated Regulation 2018/625) — Legitimate expectations — Reimbursement of the costs of representation — Article 109 of Regulation 2017/1001 and Rule 94 of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 109 of Regulation 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Invalidity proceedings — Admissibility — Conditions (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 37 and 39(3), replaced by Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625, Arts 12 and 15(4)) (see paras 30-32)

2. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Specific assurances given by the authorities — Compliance of the assurances with the applicable rules (see para. 41)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2018 (Case R 2032/2017-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ms Biernacka-Hoba and Formata Bogusław Hoba.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 February 2018 (Case R 2032/2017-4), in so far as it ordered Ms Ilona Biernacka-Hoba to pay the costs incurred by Formata Bogusław Hoba for the purposes of the invalidity proceedings and the appeal and fixed the amount of the costs that Ms Biernacka-Hoba had to pay to Formata Bogusław Hoba at EUR 1000, and alters that decision to the effect that Ms Biernacka-Hoba must not be ordered to pay such a sum;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Overlap of the scope of the grounds set out in Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 2017/1001

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c))

(see para. 51)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2019 –

VY v Commission

(Case T‑253/18)

(Civil service — Officials — Middle management post — Rejection of application — Vacancy notice — Selection procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Equality between men and women)

1. Officials — Vacancy — Filled by promotion or transfer — Consideration of the comparative merits of candidates — Administration's discretion — Limits — Observance of the conditions laid down in the vacancy notice — Judicial review — Scope (see paras 20, 21, 42, 43, 78, 88, 89)

2. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Rejection of an application — Obligation to state reasons at the latest at the stage of rejection of the complaint — Scope (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, 2nd para.) (see paras 47-49, 53, 55)

3. Officials — Equal treatment — Equal opportunity for men and women — Administration’s discretion — Limits — Burden of proof (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 21; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 1d(1), (5) and (6)) (see paras 60-65, 70, 76)

4. Officials — Recruitment — Criteria — Interests of the service — Administration's discretion — Judicial review — Limits (see para. 72)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application and the decision appointing another candidate to the post of Head of Unit within a European Union delegation.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2019 –

BP v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T‑51/18)

(Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Call for tenders of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Freelance translators — Selection procedure — Rejection of a tenderer’s offer — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

1. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Assessment of the duty to state reasons by reference to the circumstances of the case — No need to specify all the relevant factual and legal elements (Art. 296, second para. TFEU) (see paras 22, 23)

2. European Union public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (see para. 33)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 23 November 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender for the conclusion of a framework contract for the translation of legal texts from German into Greek.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;