ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
A three-dimensional trade mark consisting of the shape of a contour bottle without fluting, with a bulging centrepiece and a top section which tapers upwards like a funnel and bulges slightly at the neck, registration of which is sought in respect of ‘Goods of common metal not included in other classes; metallic bottles’ within Class 6 of the Nice Arrangement, in respect of ‘Household or kitchen utensils and containers; unworked or semi-worked glass (except glass used in building); glassware, porcelain and earthenware not included in other classes; glass and plastic bottles’ within Class 21 of the said Arrangement, and in respect of ‘Beers; mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups and other preparations for making beverages’ within Class 32 of the said Arrangement, is devoid of distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark. The mark applied for is characterised by its shape which has a curved silhouette. However, that shape represents nothing more than the sum of the parts of the mark applied for, that is to say, a bottle like the majority of bottles on the market. Such a shape is indeed likely to be commonly used in the trade of the goods covered by the trade mark application. It follows that the manner in which the components of the composite trade mark at issue here are combined is not capable of giving it distinctive character either. The mark applied for is thus a mere variant of the shape and packaging of the goods concerned which will not enable the average consumer to distinguish the goods in question from those of other undertakings.

(see paras 46, 47, 50, 51)
4.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Coexistence of earlier marks — Recognition of a certain degree of distinctiveness of a national mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 57)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 —

Ugly v OHIM — Group Lottuss (COYOTE UGLY)

(Case T‑778/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark COYOTE UGLY — Relative grounds for refusal — Revocation of the earlier Community word mark — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No non-registered mark — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 — No well-known mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention — Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation 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 unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Conditions — Interpretation in the light of EU law (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 26, 27, 46)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Use of the sign in trade — Concept — Use in the context of a commercial activity for economic advantage (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see para. 28)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 29, 30)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Use of the sign in trade — Temporal criterion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)(a)) (see para. 31)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 COYOTE UGLY (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see para. 48)

6. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark well known in a Member State — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark COYOTE UGLY (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b), and (2)(c)) (see para. 63)

7. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Purpose (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 66, 67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2014 (Case R 1369/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ugly, Inc. and Group Lottuss Corp.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Case T‑226/14

European Commission

v

McCarron Poultry Ltd

‛Arbitration clause — Fifth Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) — Contract relating to ‘Energy, environment and sustainable development’ — Termination of the contract — Reimbursement of part of the amount advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default’

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), 25 May 2016

Judicial proceedings — Amendments to the rules of procedure — Immediate application in the absence of transitional provisions — Rules on the adjudication of an applicant’s claims in the context of a default procedure

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

The provisions of new Rules of Procedure are, as procedural provisions, of immediate application from the date of their entry into force and apply, consequently, to all proceedings pending at the time when they enter into force, subject in particular to transitional provisions. In that regard, in relation to Article 123 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court concerning default procedure where a defence has not been lodged, where no transitional provision expressly refers to the said Article 123, that provision must be regarded as being of immediate application from the entry into force of the Rules of Procedure on 1 July 2015.

Moreover, even supposing the rules applicable to judgment by default in favour of the applicant in the context of a procedure by default could be regarded as being partly a matter of substantive law to the extent that they directly affect the interests of the parties to the dispute, that would be irrelevant. As the situation arising from failure to lodge a defence and from the submission of an application for judgment by default in favour of the applicant definitively arises only at the time when the Court rules on that application, the rules in question apply immediately.

(see paras 35-38)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2016 —

Warimex v EUIPO (STONE)

(Case T‑454/14)

‛EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark STONE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Limitation of the list of products and services after the decision of the Board of Appeal — Consequences (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 43(1)) (see para. 20)

2. 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 para. 30)

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 — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 52)

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 — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 53)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Figurative mark STONE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 60, 75, 78, 79, 85, 91, 92)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 83, 84)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2014 (Case R 1599/2013-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign STONE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Single Judge) of 2 June 2016 —

Revolution v EUIPO (REVOLUTION)

(Case T‑654/14)

‛EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark REVOLUTION — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — 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 — Definition — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 14-16, 51)

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 17-19)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark REVOLUTION (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 52)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 35, 37)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Slogan carrying an objective message (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see para. 36)

6. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 57, 58)

7. 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 64, 65)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2014 (Case R 2143/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign REVOLUTION as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 —

Cargill v Council

(Case T‑117/14)

‛Dumping — Imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Action for annulment — Direct concern — Individual concern — Admissibility — Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Normal value — Production costs’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Criteria — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Action by an exporter of the product affected by that duty, expressly mentioned in the regulation — Admissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 30-32)

2. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Dumping margin — Determination of the normal value — Recourse to the constructed value — Calculation of production costs on the basis of accounting registers — Derogation — Costs linked to the production and sale of the product subject to the investigation not reasonably reflected in those registers — Burden of proof borne by the institutions — Judicial review — Scope (Council Regulations No 1972/2002, fourth recital, and No 1225/2009, Arts 2(3), second para., and 5, first and second paras) (see paras 40-44, 48-71)

3. Actions for annulment — Subject-matter — Partial annulment — Condition — Severability of the contested provisions — Provision of a regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping duties — Annulment entailing a modification of the substance of the regulation (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1194/2013, Art. 1) (see paras 74-76)

Re:

ACTION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2) in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Articles 1 and 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia, in so far as they concern Cargill SACI;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Cargill;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 July 2016 —

TeamBank v EUIPO — Easy Asset Management (e@sy Credit)

(Case T‑745/14)

‛EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark e@sy Credit — Earlier national figurative mark EasyCredit — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and (2)(a)(ii), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 17-19, 37)

2. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative marks e@sy Credit and EasyCredit (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 20, 21, 22, 28, 44, 47)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 30)

4. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2014 (Case R 1975/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Easy Asset Management and TeamBank AG Nürnberg.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
2.

European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures against Syria — Ambit of the review — Exclusion of matters brought to the knowledge of the institution after the adoption of the contested decision (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP; Council Regulation No 36/2012) (see paras 39-41, 43)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 February 2017 — JingAo Solar and Others v Council

(Joined Cases T‑158/14, T‑161/14 and T‑163/14)

(Subsidies — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China — Definitive countervailing duty — Undertakings — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Scope of the investigation — Sampling — Definition of the product concerned)

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Admissibility criteria — Regulation establishing a definitive countervailing duty — Action by an undertaking whose undertakings accepted — Admissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 597/2009, Arts 13(1) and (6), and 15(1)) (see paras 38-41, 43)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Interest in making a plea — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time when the action was lodged — Plea capable of procuring a benefit for the applicant — None — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 61-71)

3. Common commercial policy — Protection against subsidisation practices of non-Member States — Course of the investigation — Definition of the product concerned — Factors capable of being taken into account — Application of criteria adopted by the institutions — Judicial review — No manifest error of assessment (Council Regulation No 597/2009, Art. 2(c)) (see paras 84-114)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66), in so far as it applies to the applicants.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders JingAo Solar Co. Ltd, and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;
Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission — Means of proof — Reliance on a body of evidence — Degree of evidential value necessary as regards items of evidence viewed in isolation — Permissibility of an overall assessment of a body of evidence — Compliance with the principle of the presumption of innocence

(Art. 101(1) TFEI; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48)

(see paras 117-123, 158, 159, 173, 174)
Making a copy-image of the hard drive of computers of an undertaking being investigated under Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 and making copies of sets of emails found on those computers fall within the scope of the Commission’s powers provided for in Article 20(2)(b) and (c) of that regulation, since they are part of the process by which the Commission operates forensic information technology, the purpose of which is to search for information relevant to the investigation in the hard drive of a computer by means of specific software.

In that regard, Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 provides that, in order to carry out the duties assigned to it by that regulation, the Commission may conduct all necessary inspections of undertakings and associations of undertakings. As regards the Commission’s powers to carry out an investigation, Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 provides, inter alia, that the officials and other accompanying persons authorised by the Commission to conduct an inspection are empowered to examine the books and other records related to the business, irrespective of the medium on which they are stored, and to take or obtain in any form copies of or extracts from such books or records.

In so far as the copying of data stored on a digital data carrier of the undertaking under inspection is carried out during an inspection for the purposes of enabling a search, at the Commission’s premises, for documents relevant to the investigation, making such a copy falls within the scope of the powers conferred on the Commission by Article 20(2)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 1/2003.

Article 20(2)(b) of Regulation No 1/2003 does not provide that the examination of the books or records related to the business of undertakings under inspection must be carried out exclusively at their premises if that inspection could not be completed within the timeframe initially envisaged. It merely requires the Commission to offer, when examining documents at its premises, the same guarantees to undertakings under inspection as those required of the Commission when conducting an on-the-spot examination.

(see paras 50, 51, 53, 56, 60)
Fundamental rights — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principle that offences and penalties must have a proper legal basis — Scope — Foreseeability of the infringing nature of the penalised conduct — Patent dispute settlement agreement between an originator company and a generic undertaking — Agreement contrary to competition law — Generic undertaking which could not have been unaware of the anti-competitive nature of its conduct

(Art. 101(1) TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 49(1))

(see paras 243-255)