ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 3 May 2018 — Laboratoires Majorelle v EUIPO — Jardin Majorelle (LABORATOIRES MAJORELLE)

(Case T‑429/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark LABORATOIRES MAJORELLE — Earlier EU word mark MAJORELLE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Earlier trade marks — Division of the trade mark application — Article 44(6) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 50(6) of Regulation 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark—Registration procedure—Division of the application (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 44) (see paras 35-37)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 49)

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—Assessment of the likelihood of confusion—Determination of the relevant public—Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 52)

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—Word marks LABORATOIRES MAJORELLE and MAJORELLE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 59, 75, 91-93)

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 between the goods or services in question—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 60)

6. 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 para. 76)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 87-90)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2017 (Case R 1238/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Jardin Majorelle and Laboratoires Majorelle.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2018 –

SE v Council

(Case T‑231/17)

(Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Article 2(2), third sentence, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Concept of ‘dependent child’ — Concept of ‘child whom the official has a responsibility to maintain under a judicial decision based on Member States’ legislation on the protection of minors’ — Refusal to grant dependent child status to the granddaughter of the official)

1. Actions brought by officials—Action against a decision rejecting a complaint—Admissibility—Obligation to rule on pleas directed against the decision rejecting the complaint—Pleas devoid of independent content or purely confirmatory decision—None (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 21, 22)

2. EU law—Interpretation—Texts in several languages—Differences between the various language versions—Account to be taken of the overall scheme and purpose of the legislation in question (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 2(2) third para.) (see paras 34, 35)

3. Officials—Remuneration—Family allowances—Dependent child allowance—Person treated as a dependent child—Condition—Responsibility to maintain under a judicial decision based on Member States’ legislation on the protection of minors—Meaning (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 24; Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 2(2) third para. and (4)) (see paras 36, 39, 40, 43-46, 50, 57)

4. Actions brought by officials—Subject-matter—Directions to the administration—Statements of law—Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 270 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see para. 63)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Council’s decision of 22 June 2016, by which the appointing authority of that institution refused to recognise that the applicant’s granddaughter was a ‘dependent child’ of the applicant within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))

(see para. 24)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 May 2018 –

Item Industrietechnik v EUIPO (EFUSE)

(Case T‑426/17)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark EFUSE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

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 paras 16, 31)

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—Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 17-19)

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—Figurative mark EFUSE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23-27, 29, 30, 34, 35)

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—Meaning—Neologism consisting of elements descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services concerned—Whether included where the nature of the combination is not unusual (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 28)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2017 (Case R 1881/2016-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign EFUSE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action
EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Jurisdiction of the General Court—Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it—Not included

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188)

(see para. 18)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 September 2018 –

Ntolas v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GN Laboratories)

(Case T‑712/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark GN Laboratories — Earlier EU word mark GNC — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 20)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 21)

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 marks GN Laboratories and GNC (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 25-33)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2017 (Case R 2358/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between General Nutrition Investment Co. and C. Ntolas.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
The obligation deriving from the third paragraph of Article 1 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations to adopt general implementing provisions relating to Article 10 of that annex prior to adopting a decision revising the amount of the allowance for living conditions (ALC) applicable to agents posted to third countries is explained by the fact that that Article 10 confers a particularly broad margin of appreciation on the appointing authority with respect to the determination of the living conditions in third countries.

Thus, in providing for such an obligation, the legislature intended, firstly, that the criteria to be applied in that determination should be established according to the procedure for adopting general implementing provisions described in Article 110(1) of the Staff Regulations, a procedure which allows the appointing authority to seek clarification about the relevant parameters by consulting its staff committee and seeking the opinion of the Staff Regulations committee. Secondly, the legislature intended the criteria to be established in the abstract, independently of any procedure designed to revise, in a specific case, the amount of the ALC applicable to agents posted to a third country, in order to avoid the risk that the choice of criteria might be influenced by the outcome which the administration hoped to obtain.

That being so, the third paragraph of Article 1 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations cannot be regarded as merely setting down a formal requirement to be met by a decision revising the amount of the ALC applicable to agents posted to third countries. Instead, it provides that the prior adoption of general implementing provisions in accordance with the procedure described in Article 110(1) of the Staff Regulations is a mandatory requirement which must be fulfilled in order for a decision to be legally adopted.

(see paras 32, 33)
EU trade mark—Surrender, revocation and invalidity—Causes of revocation—Absence of genuine use of a trade mark—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Genuine use—Meaning—Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 51(1)(a) and 78(1)(f); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rules 22(2) and (3) and 40(5))

(see paras 26-28)
It follows from Article 2 of the Staff Regulations, first, that the appointing authority acts in the name of the institution which designated it, so that acts concerning the legal position of officials and which may adversely affect them must be attributed to the institution to which they are attached and, secondly, that any appeal must be brought against the institution from which the act having an adverse effect emanated.

In the present case there is no doubt that the contested decision was adopted by the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics — Luxembourg (OIL). It follows from a combined reading of the applicable legislation and, in particular, Article 91a of the Staff Regulations that the Commission, not the Parliament, is the defendant in an action against a decision of the OIL.

Accordingly, the claims for annulment are inadmissible since they were not directed against the Commission.

(see paras 29, 30, 35)
European Parliament — Funding of European political parties — Award of grants — Evaluation of the risk to the budget and the EU’s financial interests — Criteria — Account taken of the difficulty to assess the administrative and financial viability of a newly-created political party — Lawfulness

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2004/2003, Arts 3(1), 8 and 10(2); Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Art. 202(2); Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament laying down the procedures for implementing Regulation No 2004/2003, Art. 7(3))

(see paras 49-51, 53, 55, 56)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 December 2018 –

Bischoff v EUIPO — Miroglio Fashion (CARACTÈRE)

(Case T‑743/17)

(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark CARACTÈRE — Absolute grounds for refusal — No descriptive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 15)

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 — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 23)

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 — Meaning (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 24-26)

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. 27)

5. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Word mark CARACTÈRE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 37, 40-42)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Meaning — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 48-50)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 July 2017 (Case R 328/2016-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Bischoff and Miroglio Fashion.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 35(1)(e))

(see para. 49)
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d), 171, 172)

(see paras 18, 19)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 –

Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Alimentos Friorizados (Alfrisa)

(Case T‑820/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Alfrisa — Earlier EU figurative mark Frinsa F — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 28)

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 marks Alfrisa and Frinsa F (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30-82)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)b)) (see para. 33)

4. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 59)

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 — Likelihood of association — Earlier marks exhibiting characteristics enabling them to be regarded as forming part of the same series or family — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 67, 69)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 September 2017 (Case R 956/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Frinsa del Noroeste and Alimentos Friorizados.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 — Application to documents concerning an EU Pilot procedure — General presumption that the exception to the right of access applies — Limits — Rebuttable

(Arts 15(3) TFEU and 258 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), 3rd indent)

(see paras 26, 37-40)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 January 2019 –

Windspiel Manufaktur v EUIPO (Representation of the position of a bottle closure)

(Case T‑489/17)

(EU trade mark — Application for an EU trade mark representing a bottle closure — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 14, 15, 43)

2. 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 23, 29)

3. 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 — Positional mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Mark representing a bottle closure (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 32-37, 44, 50, 51, 60-64)

5. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Examination by the EU judicature — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 41)

6. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75(1), second sentence) (see paras 52, 54)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 June 2017 (Case R 1374/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of a sign representing a bottle closure as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
As is apparent from the case-law, there is genuine use of a trade mark where it is used in accordance with its essential function, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services for which it is registered, in order to create or preserve an outlet for those goods or services; genuine use does not include token use for the sole purpose of preserving the rights conferred by the mark. In this respect, it should be noted that, similarly, the essential function of an EU collective mark is to distinguish the goods or services of the members of the association which is the proprietor of the mark from those of other undertakings.

In the assessment as to whether use of the trade mark is genuine, regard must be had to all the facts and circumstances relevant to establishing whether the commercial exploitation of the mark in the course of trade is real, particularly whether such use is viewed as warranted in the economic sector concerned in order to maintain or create a share in the market for the goods or services protected by the mark, the nature of those goods or services, the characteristics of the market and the scale and frequency of use of the mark.

Moreover, genuine use of a trade mark cannot be proved by means of probabilities or suppositions, but has to be demonstrated by solid and objective evidence of effective and sufficient use of the trade mark on the market concerned. An overall assessment must be made, taking into account all the relevant factors of the particular case and implying some interdependence between the factors taken into account.

(see paras 26-28)
EU budget — EU financial assistance — Obligation on the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the assistance — Justification of costs incurred — Proceedings by the Commission for recovery of advances paid — Allocation of the burden of proof

(Art. 272 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2321/2002, Arts 12(2) and 14(2)(a))

(see paras 33-35, 55-57, 59-61)
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para., and Art. 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))

(see para. 9)