ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 December 2016 — Groupe Go Sport v EUIPO — Design Go (GO SPORT)

(Case T‑703/15)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU word mark GO SPORT — Earlier national word marks GO — Partial refusal of registration by the Opposition Division — Late filing of the statement of grounds of appeal — Inadmissibility of the appeal brought before the Board of Appeal — Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 49(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

1. EU trade mark — Proceedings before the EUIPO authorities — Transmission of communications to the Office — Transmission by fax — Communication incomplete or illegible (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 80(2)) (see paras 61-63)

2. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Time-limits — Claim barred by lapse of time — Exceptions — Obligation of care and diligence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 60; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 49(3)) (see para. 68)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2015 (Case R 569/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Design Go and Groupe Go Sport.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Case T‑26/15 P

European Commission

v

Emil Hristov

‛Appeal — Civil service — Appointment — Procedure for selection and appointment of the executive director of a regulatory agency — EMA — Pre-selection by a pre-selection panel — Appointment by the EMA’s Management Board — Composition of the pre-selection panel — Combination of functions as a member of the pre-selection panel and as a member of the EMA’s Management Board — Impartiality’

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber), 5 July 2016

Officials — Recruitment — Procedure for filling a director post — Pre-selection panel — Principle of impartiality — Composition — Member of the panel also a member of the appointing body — Lawfulness (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 726/2004, Arts 64 to 66)

In a procedure for filling a post as director of an EU agency, the fact that a member of the pre-selection committee is also a member of the management board of the agency cannot, per se, cast doubt on his impartiality as a member of the pre-selection panel. The mere fact of sitting on the pre-selection panel and on the management board cannot be used as a basis for a presumption of bias on the part of the members of the pre-selection panel in relation to the procedure before the panel.

(see para. 52)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 —

Azur Space Solar Power v EUIPO (Representation of black lines and bricks)

(Case T‑614/15)

(EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing black lines and bricks — Absolute ground for refusal — No 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 11, 12)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Figurative mark consisting of the two-dimensional representation of a product—Distinctive character—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 13-18)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Figurative mark representing black lines and bricks (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 32, 46, 47)

4. EU trade mark—Procedural provisions—Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion—Registration of a new trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), and 76(1)) (see paras 37, 38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2015 (Case R 3233/2014-4), concerning the international registration designating the European Union of a figurative mark representing black lines and bricks.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 2016 —

Beiersdorf v EUIPO (Q10)

(Case T‑4/15)

‛EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Q10 — Refusal to register a disclaimer as to the scope of the protection — Article 37(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 15)

2. EU trade mark — Registration procedure — Examination of the application — Mark containing an element devoid of distinctive character — Power of the Office to demand a statement relating to that element — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 37(2)) (see paras 16-18)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark Q10 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 22-26, 36, 37)

4. 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. 38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2014 (Case R 2050/2013-1), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign Q10 as an EU trademark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 September 2016 — Universal Protein Supplements v EUIPO (Representation of a body builder)

(Affaire T‑335/15)

‛EU trade mark — Application for registration of an EU figurative mark representing a body-builder — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) 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 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20, 21, 39)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark representing a body builder (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, 33, 40, 41)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2015 (Case R 2958/2014-5) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a body-builder as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 20 September 2016 — PAN Europe v Commission

(Case T‑51/15)

‛Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Documents relating to endocrine-disrupting chemicals — Partial refusal of access — Exception relating to the decision-making process — Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001’

1. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the decision-making process — Conditions — Concrete, actual and serious detriment to that process — Refusal based on the need to protect the process against external pressures — Lawfulness — Conditions — Account taken of the freedom of expression of the services of the institution concerned — Exclusion (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2) and (3), first para.) (see paras 21-25, 30, 34, 42)

2. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the decision-making process — Conditions — Concrete, actual and serious detriment to that process — Scope — Sensitivity of the information sought — Not in itself capable of warranting application of the exception (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(3), first para.) (see para. 34)

3. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the decision-making process — Conditions — Concrete, actual and serious detriment to that process — Scope — Refusal based on loss of the institution concerned’s margin for manoeuvre and its capacity to obtain an internal compromise — Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(3), first para.) (see para. 36)

4. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the decision-making process — Possibility of requesting internal documents containing preliminary analyses (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(3), first para.) (see para. 41)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 24 November 2014, under the reference Ares (2014) 3900631, in so far as it refuses access to documents relating to endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 24 November 2014, under the reference Ares (2014) 3900631, in so far as it refuses access to the documents designated under numbers 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17a, 20, 22, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43, on the basis of the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe);
EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Form of appeal and period within which it must be brought—To be brought in writing and within a period of two months—Obligation to produce a translation in the language of the case within a month of lodging the original document—No obligation on the Office to warn of the consequences of non-compliance with the formalities

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 60; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 48(2), 49(1), and 96(1))

(see para. 61)
An examination of the grounds for refusal must be carried out in relation to each of the goods or services for which trade mark registration is sought. Where the same ground of refusal is given for a category or group of goods or services, the reasoning may be general for all of the goods or services concerned. However, such a power extends only to goods and services which are interlinked in a sufficiently direct and specific way, to the point where they form a sufficiently homogeneous category or group of goods or services. The mere fact that the goods or services concerned are within the same class of the Nice Agreement is not sufficient for a finding that such homogeneity exists, as those classes often contain a large variety of goods and services which are not necessarily interlinked in a sufficiently direct and specific way. Homogeneity of the goods or services is assessed with regard to the actual ground of refusal given in respect of the mark in question and it is possible to use general reasoning for a series of goods or services which have a sufficiently direct and specific link to each other to the extent that they form such a sufficiently homogenous category as to enable all the factual and legal considerations constituting the grounds of the decision in question to explain adequately the reasoning followed for each of the goods and services belonging to that category and to be applied without distinction to each of the goods or services concerned.

(see paras 15-18)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 March 2017 — Sociedad agraria de transformación no 9982 Montecitrus v EUIPO — Spanish Oranges (MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN)

(Case T‑495/15)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN — Earlier EU figurative mark monteCitrus — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Identity of the goods — No similarity between the signs — 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—Degree of attention of the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 26)

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 mark MOUNTAIN CITRUS and figurative mark monteCitrus (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 57, 67, 69)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 28)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark 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 29, 30, 62)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2015 (Case R 871/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sociedad agraria de transformación No 9982 Montecitrus and Spanish Oranges.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 —

Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Sales)

(Case T‑517/15)

(EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Sales — Lack of distinctive character — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) 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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 17, 22, 36)

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 — Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 18-21)

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 — Word mark Limbic® Sales (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 24-28, 35-52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1972/2014-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Limbic® Sales as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1972/2014-1);
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 February 2017 —

Hernández Zamora v EUIPO — Rosen Tantau (Paloma)

(Case T‑369/15)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Paloma — Earlier EU figurative mark Paloma — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1) 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 35)

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 — Word mark Paloma and figurative mark Paloma (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18, 30, 36)

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 — Complementary nature of the goods (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23, 26-28)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2015 (Case R 1697/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Hernández Zamora and Rosen Tantau.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Own resources of the European Union — Regulation on financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union — Implementation of the budget — Obligation to comply with the principle of transparency — Scope

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Arts 6, 34(1), and 35(2); Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Art. 22)

(see paras 147-152)
EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Scope — Application to administrative files relating to procedures for reviewing State aid — General presumption that the exception applies to the right of access to all the documents on the administrative file — Application for access formulated during the court proceedings concerning the decision on the substance — Admissibility of the refusal

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), third indent)

(see paras 41, 42, 50)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2017 —

Tillotts Pharma v EUIPO — Ferring (OCTASA)

(Case T‑632/15)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark OCTASA — Prior German and Benelux word marks PENTASA — 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 26, 58, 74)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Earlier trade mark constituted by an EU trade mark — Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 25)

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 — Word mark OCTASA — Word mark PENTASA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 36, 38, 39, 72, 75)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public — Pharmaceutical products (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36-38)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2015 (Case R 2386/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Ferring and Tillotts Pharma.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 TFUE; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1))

(see paras 63, 66, 70)
Judicial proceedings—Rules on languages—Production of procedural documents in a language other than that of the case—Admissibility criteria

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 46)

(see para. 21)
EU trade mark–Procedural provisions–Invalidity proceedings–Facts and evidence not submitted in support of the claim for invalidity within the time-limit–Account taken–Discretion of the Board of Appeal

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 57(1)(2) and (3), and 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 40(6))

(see paras 23-28, 34, 36, 37)
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 26, 59)
Acts of the institutions—Statement of reasons—Obligation—Scope—Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender—Obligation on the awarding authority to notify, on written request, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the successful tenderer—No obligation to provide a detailed summary as how every detail of the rejected tender was taken into account for assessment purposes, or a detailed comparative analysis of the accepted tender and the unsuccessful tender

(Art. 296 TFEU; Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 113(2), first para.; Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Arts 149(3) and 161(3), third para.)

(see paras 34-37)